Believer or not, your epitome of desire, is to be named the Greatest I am.

[atrib]

In what way? All I have done is ask you to support your assertion with evidence and reason, because I am not willing to simply take your word for it. How does that make me pompous?



Every human on the planet is different. We all think differently and are motivated by different things, although we can sometimes be typecast into broad general categories. Second, individuals do not evolve, biologically speaking, but populations of humans do. I was born with the genes I was born with, and those do not change. We do change physiologically as we live, but that is not evolution. Not every human desires to be the "epitome of fitness", whatever that is supposed to mean. Some of us are content to live our lives in the slower lanes, savoring every moment without the drive to become the best at what we do. If fact, the overachievers are the minority. There are very few Michael Jordans and Elon Musks in the world; most of us are just average. Your assertion is demonstrably wrong, else bell-shaped curves and grading/selection based on test scores would not exist.

Now, if you have no internal synonym to that, you are defective.

I have no fucking clue what this means. I am defective because I don't want to be greatest human in the world? Are you fucking kidding me?

It is demonstrable that nature always creates for the best possible end, and your consciousness calls or names that condition something synonymous with your fittest possible self.

So demonstrate it. Instead of just making unsupported assertions.

No, nature does NOT create the best possible end. Evolution has no goal to be perfect or to necessarily optimize the design to the best possible state; it is a mechanism that selects for the fittest among a group of individuals, but that doesn't mean nature creates perfection or even the best possible outcome. A lot of it is driven by blind luck and circumstance. You need to be good enough and lucky enough to survive and reproduce, not to be the best at anything. You clearly do not understand how evolution works.

From your reply, you do not seem to have any Gnosis of what you are and do.

I know exactly who I am and what makes me happy. I am not spiritual in that I do not believe supernatural nonsense, but one can be knowledgeable of the world and their place in it, and lead a fulfilling life without believing such nonsense.

So I ask you again, are you here to preach, or to discuss ideas?

Let's look at your notion.
"No, nature does NOT create the best possible end."

Have you fathered a child?

You are a part of nature.

Did you reproduce for less than the best possible end?

If you did, and you did not want to reproduce the best, what makes you think the rest of nature would follow and not create for the best end?

Regards
DL

Because babies!
Do you know how many babies are born with Down Syndrome? Or addicted to heroin because their mothers were users? Or with microcephaly, or holes in their hearts or any host of other medical conditions? Best possible goal indeed.

You don't understand how nature works, and you can't be bothered to explain your own arguments or listen to arguments made by others. All you are interested in is peddling your woo. Preaching is not permitted in these forums.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you know how many babies are born with Down Syndrome? Or addicted to heroin

Heck, any mothers who smoke or drink alcohol during pregnancy disprove the 'nature strives for the best' claim.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Having a kid while risking genetic inheritance they think of as undesirable, because they want their bloodline to continue, even at a cost to their offspring.

This last makes no logical sense, just as your first is.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Tell us why you think a parent would choose less than the best for their child.

Pride. Arrogance. Selfishness. .

These cause the opposite. Those would have then choose the best traits.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

In what way? All I have done is ask you to support your assertion with evidence and reason, because I am not willing to simply take your word for it. How does that make me pompous?



Every human on the planet is different. We all think differently and are motivated by different things, although we can sometimes be typecast into broad general categories. Second, individuals do not evolve, biologically speaking, but populations of humans do. I was born with the genes I was born with, and those do not change. We do change physiologically as we live, but that is not evolution. Not every human desires to be the "epitome of fitness", whatever that is supposed to mean. Some of us are content to live our lives in the slower lanes, savoring every moment without the drive to become the best at what we do. If fact, the overachievers are the minority. There are very few Michael Jordans and Elon Musks in the world; most of us are just average. Your assertion is demonstrably wrong, else bell-shaped curves and grading/selection based on test scores would not exist.



I have no fucking clue what this means. I am defective because I don't want to be greatest human in the world? Are you fucking kidding me?

It is demonstrable that nature always creates for the best possible end, and your consciousness calls or names that condition something synonymous with your fittest possible self.

So demonstrate it. Instead of just making unsupported assertions.

No, nature does NOT create the best possible end. Evolution has no goal to be perfect or to necessarily optimize the design to the best possible state; it is a mechanism that selects for the fittest among a group of individuals, but that doesn't mean nature creates perfection or even the best possible outcome. A lot of it is driven by blind luck and circumstance. You need to be good enough and lucky enough to survive and reproduce, not to be the best at anything. You clearly do not understand how evolution works.

From your reply, you do not seem to have any Gnosis of what you are and do.

I know exactly who I am and what makes me happy. I am not spiritual in that I do not believe supernatural nonsense, but one can be knowledgeable of the world and their place in it, and lead a fulfilling life without believing such nonsense.

So I ask you again, are you here to preach, or to discuss ideas?

Let's look at your notion.
"No, nature does NOT create the best possible end."

Have you fathered a child?

You are a part of nature.

Did you reproduce for less than the best possible end?

If you did, and you did not want to reproduce the best, what makes you think the rest of nature would follow and not create for the best end?

Regards
DL

Because babies!
Do you know how many babies are born with Down Syndrome? Or addicted to heroin because their mothers were users? Or with microcephaly, or holes in their hearts or any host of other medical conditions? Best possible goal indeed.

You don't understand how nature works, and you can't be bothered to explain your own arguments or listen to arguments made by others. All you are interested in is peddling your woo. Preaching is not permitted in these forums.

You do not understand nature and stop your fucking preaching.

You have your own physical and mental problems that came from nature.

That does not negate that it tried to make you for your best possible end.

It sometimes happens that nature is given garbage to work with, in genetic terms, but it still tries for the best end.

Why do you think life would work for some lesser goal?

What would that goal be? The worst end?

You are a part of nature. Do you work for the best end or something less?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Do you know how many babies are born with Down Syndrome? Or addicted to heroin

Heck, any mothers who smoke or drink alcohol during pregnancy disprove the 'nature strives for the best' claim.

Are you suggesting that she intentionally wanted you to be defective, or do you think she wanted to produce the best her polluted body could produce.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you know how many babies are born with Down Syndrome? Or addicted to heroin

Heck, any mothers who smoke or drink alcohol during pregnancy disprove the 'nature strives for the best' claim.

Are you suggesting that she intentionally wanted you to be defective, or do you think she wanted to produce the best her polluted body could produce.

I'm saying if she's still polluting her body during pregnancy, having been made aware that it poses a risk to the baby, she's not making the best possible choice for the baby.
Thus, Nature is not striving for The Best in this instance.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Tell us why you think a parent would choose less than the best for their child.

Pride. Arrogance. Selfishness. .

These cause the opposite. Those would have then choose the best traits.

There are parents choosing not to vaccinate their child. This is not The Best for their child. It is not equipping the child to outperform the competition.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Are you suggesting that she intentionally wanted you to be defective, or do you think she wanted to produce the best her polluted body could produce.

I'm saying if she's still polluting her body during pregnancy, having been made aware that it poses a risk to the baby, she's not making the best possible choice for the baby.
Thus, Nature is not striving for The Best in this instance.

It is.

It just could not get your mother to care for you more than herself.

To be fair to your mother, like my own smoker mother and father, they did not know better in those days.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

To be fair to your mother,

To actually be fair to my mother, this bit where you allege my general observation is my personal history would have to stop.

like my own smoker mother and father, they did not know better in those days.

Which would be why i specified women that have that information. And are therefore examples of Nature making a suboptimal choice for the kid, or prioritizing something OVER the kid's best possible outcomes.

.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

These cause the opposite. Those would have then choose the best traits.

There are parents choosing not to vaccinate their child. This is not The Best for their child. It is not equipping the child to outperform the competition.

I agree.

What you are describing seems to be the best possible end for those poor children, whose best is just not that good, given the stupidity of the parents.

That will give the advantage to others. Nature is always pruning it's least fit.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

To be fair to your mother,

To actually be fair to my mother, this bit where you allege my general observation is my personal history would have to stop.

like my own smoker mother and father, they did not know better in those days.

Which would be why i specified women that have that information. And are therefore examples of Nature making a suboptimal choice for the kid, or prioritizing something OVER the kid's best possible outcomes.

.

Whatever thought is left for the child, is still the best that nature could get out of the parents.

Perhaps we will get closer in thought if I can get you to look at the larger universe and recognize it for what it is. evolving perfection. We do not seem to be on the same page on this issue at th micro level so prhaps the macro level will get us closer.

No point in calling parents into this.

-----------

Let me speak to the lie of Gnostic Christians hating matter.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religion’s originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

These cause the opposite. Those would have then choose the best traits.

There are parents choosing not to vaccinate their child. This is not The Best for their child. It is not equipping the child to outperform the competition.

I agree.

What you are describing seems to be the best possible end for those poor children, whose best is just not that good, given the stupidity of the parents.

That will give the advantage to others. Nature is always pruning it's least fit.

Regards
DL

But according to you, 'nature' includes the people manipulating those parents for their agendas. So nature is choosing to drive the disvaccination of the kids, which is quite clearly nature not choosing the best.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Whatever thought is left for the child, is still the best that nature could get out of the parents.

Except that the parents are part of nature, thus this is NOT the best that nature COULD get out of the parents, if the parents were actually motivated to do the best by their kids.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I agree.

What you are describing seems to be the best possible end for those poor children, whose best is just not that good, given the stupidity of the parents.

That will give the advantage to others. Nature is always pruning it's least fit.

Regards
DL

But according to you, 'nature' includes the people manipulating those parents for their agendas. So nature is choosing to drive the disvaccination of the kids, which is quite clearly nature not choosing the best.

Again, that is nature pruning out the less fit. That is the main function of evolution. Right?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Whatever thought is left for the child, is still the best that nature could get out of the parents.

Except that the parents are part of nature, thus this is NOT the best that nature COULD get out of the parents, if the parents were actually motivated to do the best by their kids.

They think it the best for their kids and thus do not go against their natural or nurtured thinking.

They do not recognize the potential harm.

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

Gnostic continues to infer there is an intent to things like evolution.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Gnostic continues to infer there is an intent to things like evolution.

That would mean that I give evolution sentience.

I do not.

Stop lying about me please.

I do give thinking entities sentience, but nature is not an entity.

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

In your own words nature optimizes and selects. If not by intent, why?

To me the question is meaningless, reality is what it is.

When you hit a key on the keyboard think back to the formation of our star which generated all the atoms in yiur body, back to the formation of the galaxy, through all the stellar processes. Through all tine. There is no optimum.

If as yiu say this is the best of all possible worlds I have the sane response as for the god creation myth.

Earthquakes, asteroid strikes, solar flares, tornados, plagues ... not very optimum al=t least from a design perspective.

And as I say to all beliefs, if what you believe soothes you and improves quality of life, then good for you.

You and I are essentially no different than a rock, both rock and us are products of the same natural processes.

Creation mythology and invention of guiding forces or spirits are attempts to soften that reality and provide meaning where there is none.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

In your own words nature optimizes and selects. If not by intent, why?

It is inadvertent and natural given the lack of sentience.

You may as well ask why a rock is hard. It is it's nature.

If as yiu say this is the best of all possible worlds

I say it cannot be other than what it is and is therefore the best it can be, given our history, in spite of your wish list.

Show a flaw in my reasoning if you can.

Regards
DL