Argument from Desire

[vardaquinn]

AW:

Well, but if we can’t, why would it be desired? We’re not going to desire what we don’t have any knowledge of, are we?

God bless,
jd

Right… We can’t even really imagine what eternal infinite happiness would be like. I don’t think we have any great knowledge of infinite happiness, but I think we must have some idea of what it is like.

After all, earth is our “womb” our preparation for the real birth when we get to heaven. So everything in this earth prepares us for heaven. So we must have some idea of what infinite happiness is, and have some knowledge of it in order to desire it.

But you bring up an Epistemological concept I think, and that’s the route my argument went. :ehh: We went down the road of the Ontological arguments… and it’s all so abstract and confusing. Ah well.

Anyway, I’m starting to have more faith in this argument.

 

[JDaniel]

Right… We can’t even really imagine what eternal infinite happiness would be like. I don’t think we have any great knowledge of infinite happiness, but I think we must have some idea of what it is like.

After all, earth is our “womb” our preparation for the real birth when we get to heaven. So everything in this earth prepares us for heaven. So we must have some idea of what infinite happiness is, and have some knowledge of it in order to desire it.

But you bring up an Epistemological concept I think, and that’s the route my argument went. :ehh: We went down the road of the Ontological arguments… and it’s all so abstract and confusing. Ah well.

Anyway, I’m starting to have more faith in this argument.

Vard:

I concur with everything you said. Thank you.

God bless,
jd

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, not yet at least. It did on Star Trek! But, aren’t most sane people’s sane desires achievable?

God bless,
jd

MOST. But I don’t see why it’s so ludicrous for somebody to have an unreachable desire. It seems perfectly plausible to me.

 

[vardaquinn]

MOST. But I don’t see why it’s so ludicrous for somebody to have an unreachable desire. It seems perfectly plausible to me.

But… a universal desire, a desire present in everyone? Something innate, like the desire for happiness? That seems ludicrous.

Imagine another planet. Take the Ents from the Lord of the Rings. Imagine a whole planet of Ents, all of whom long deeply and innately for the Entwives - except the Entwives don’t exist.

It IS ridiculous to think of having innate, universally present desires without their being real objects of satisfaction.

You see, there’s a distinction between innate and natural desires and desires that are not innate and universally present.

 

[kk23wong]

I can. For premise 2

Desires come from self-consciousnesses. Species with higher intelligence have an intention to be more self-conscious. A relatively high degree of self-consciousness can be described as selfish. It depends on comparisons. Like morality, it is a common agreement of the people at the time being.

The desires of being admired and glorified in order to achieve satisfactions (happiness) are horrible. For instance, we glorified the God including the Catholic with adjectives “all-good”, “merciful” and “almighty”. By the breakthroughs in information technology and news media, we know that we have **WARS **at least 499 women were raped in Congo DR last month, POVERTY a billion people have malnutrition and PAIN 50,000 children forced to beg on the streets in Senegal Africa.

A subject (put aside the arguments on presence first) worshipped by all religions – the God – is eternally happy with our worshipping without realizing the **TRUTH **that people are suffering from her ideals and persuade people preparing for an afterlife when they are only 21, which is an average life span in Africa. The natural desire to be eternally happy becomes a mental illness.

You have the God and the one I am talking about is the same.
***The God *can never be “the God” – an ideal of morality in this case.
She is only an illusion if she keeps her desires (religions).

Anyone else deny this point?
From the above, the desire to be “eternally happy” is an insane.

Teru Wong

 

[reggieM]

Take, for instance, the happiness one derives from loving your girlfriend or wife. That happiness is indescribable and you want it to last forever. It is objectifyable. It’s the happiness I feel when I’m near her.

Now, that’s not an “object,” in the sense that it is an earthly object. But, it is an object of the mind. It is an “objectifying.” And, the relation of me with my wife, for example, is a mental object.

Each snapshot we store is a photograph of a real object or event, which is also an object. “Object” here is not restricted to something like an exigency with mass. It may well be an aggregate of events, that is objectified by our minds. So, I don’t think it is meant to be literally taken as an extant object.

Does that make sense?

God bless,
jd

Excellent point, JD. That example is probably the highest quality of desire that we can have in earthly terms.

First, in the desire for our girlfriend or spouse, it’s oriented to a person. That has a huge impact because that person has an infinite quality – so, we’re loving “something” (really a person not a thing) infinite - endless. The love never stops because the person is always partially a mystery to us – we learn more and there’s always more to know.
Second, we desire a union with that person. And there’s a sensation of joy, fulfillment, wonder, shared-knowledge …

For all of that, we want it to last forever. The desire “aims” at that purpose – of going on forever.

So, that wouldn’t make any sense at all. Every person knows that our earthly life will stop. So, why should we have desires for a love that lasts forever? It’s illogical, in materialistic terms. The best solution to that question is that these desires truly will last forever. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have them.

Every human being has desires.
Some of these desires are universal – experienced by every human in every culture through all history.
Those are natural, innate human desires.
Some of those desires cannot and have never been fully satisfied by anything in time or on earth.

So … why is this?

Possible answers:

1. Evolution caused those desires to exist. They do not have a purpose beyond survival of the species. They come from matter and physical processes.
2. They are the result of random factors. They are irrational and meaningless.
3. They are natural human desires which will be fulfilled beyond time and the earth. Spiritually, they are already partially fulfilled in ways that material/physical processes cannot.

Again, I think the argument is saying that #3 above is the most logical and rational answer to the question as to why these desires exist.

 

[reggieM]

But… a universal desire, a desire present in everyone? Something innate, like the desire for happiness? That seems ludicrous.

Imagine another planet. Take the Ents from the Lord of the Rings. Imagine a whole planet of Ents, all of whom long deeply and innately for the Entwives - except the Entwives don’t exist.

It IS ridiculous to think of having innate, universally present desires without their being real objects of satisfaction.

You see, there’s a distinction between innate and natural desires and desires that are not innate and universally present.

Especially through centuries of history.
The same, unfulfillable desires are present. They don’t go away, even though everyone has known that they cannot be fulfilled. What good do they do in a materialistic concept?

 

[reggieM]

I can. For premise 2

Desires come from self-consciousnesses. Species with higher intelligence have an intention to be more self-conscious. A relatively high degree of self-consciousness can be described as selfish. It depends on comparisons. Like morality, it is a common agreement of the people at the time being.

The desires of being admired and glorified in order to achieve satisfactions (happiness) are horrible. For instance, we glorified the God including the Catholic with adjectives “all-good”, “merciful” and “almighty”. By the breakthroughs in information technology and news media, we know that we have **WARS **at least 499 women were raped in Congo DR last month, POVERTY a billion people have malnutrition and PAIN 50,000 children forced to beg on the streets in Senegal Africa.

A subject (put aside the arguments on presence first) worshipped by all religions – the God – is eternally happy with our worshipping without realizing the **TRUTH **that people are suffering from her ideals and persuade people preparing for an afterlife when they are only 21, which is an average life span in Africa. The natural desire to be eternally happy becomes a mental illness.

You have the God and the one I am talking about is the same.
***The God ***can never be “the God” – an ideal of morality in this case.
She is only an illusion if she keeps her desires (religions).

Anyone else deny this point?
From the above, the desire to be “eternally happy” is an insane.

Teru Wong

You have not explained the origin of this so-called “insane” desire.

The desire to be eternally happy actually makes a lot of sense in your scenarios.

The sufferings of this earth are nothing compared to the happiness after.

You are speaking in terms of some kind of justice – with you as the standard.

If pain is necessary in order that the greatest good can be achieved … then this is a truth of life.

If pain is not at all necessary for good to be achieved, then I think you will have a very difficult time proving that, especially if you have children, or have ever tried to teach or coach anyone, or have been disciplined yourself.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

But… a universal desire, a desire present in everyone? Something innate, like the desire for happiness? That seems ludicrous.

Imagine another planet. Take the Ents from the Lord of the Rings. Imagine a whole planet of Ents, all of whom long deeply and innately for the Entwives - except0 the Entwives don’t exist.

It IS ridiculous to think of having innate, universally present desires without their being real objects of satisfaction.

You see, there’s a distinction between innate and natural desires and desires that are not innate and universally present.

That does not prove the Entwices exist-for all we know the Ents DID imagine them, in attempt, perhaps, to make their miserable lives seem happier (I am pretty much 100% sure this wasn’t Tolkien’s intention, but for the purposes of argument…)

I don’t see how you’ve proven that something HAS to correlate to this desire. You’re just saying it.

 

[kk23wong]

You have not explained the origin of this so-called “insane” desire.

The desire to be eternally happy actually makes a lot of sense in your scenarios.

The sufferings of this earth are nothing compared to the happiness after.

You are speaking in terms of some kind of justice – with you as the standard.

If pain is necessary in order that the greatest good can be achieved … then this is a truth of life.

If pain is not at all necessary for good to be achieved, then I think you will have a very difficult time proving that, especially if you have children, or have ever tried to teach or coach anyone, or have been disciplined yourself.

This insane idea comes up with the desires.

Religions should have already become valuable **heritages **completely in this stage.
It is an inevitable result of our technological advancement.
It is logically a natural course of human history.

There must be some forces (the Catholic may refer to the power of the God) to prevent it from happening.

Desires belong to all level of living things if lives have hierarchies.

You suggest that people suffering now would be compensated in their afterlife.
Sometimes, deceiving yourself is the first step to deceiving others.
Faith is not** an excuse**.

As you can see, the great numbers of suffering on the Earth are supported by data.

Teru Wong

 

[reggieM]

Religions should have already become valuable **heritages **completely in this stage.
It is an inevitable result of our technological advancement.
It is logically a natural course of human history.

There must be some forces (the Catholic may refer to the power of the God) to prevent it from happening.

I agree with your observation and concern here. In a scientistic view, religion should have disappeared long ago – it can barely be explained at all. But the opposite has happened. This is inexplicable except for the existence of some unnamed “forces” – or the Catholic view, which seems more reasonable, that God has created religion as integral to human culture. God did that for a reason.

Desires belong to all level of living things if lives have hierarchies.

That’s an interesting observation. We could ask where hierarchies come from also. Categorizations, for example, of individuals is something that occurs outside of the limits of physical-nature. It’s non-material.

You suggest that people suffering now would be compensated in their afterlife.
Sometimes, deceiving yourself is the first step to deceiving others.

I’m very open to any scientific evidence you might have that proves my suggestion to be false. If people are compensated in the afterlife, then that is a fact, not a deception.

As you can see, the great numbers of suffering on the Earth are supported by data.

Do you accept the scientific evidence which evaluates the quality and quantity of suffering that Christ endured? Along with that, how about the theological evidence that explains why Christ endured the suffering that He embraced?

… the study could continue on the subject of the Martyrs of the Coliseum for example.
How much did they suffer?
Why did they suffer?
What did suffering mean to them?

 

[kk23wong]

I agree with your observation and concern here. In a scientistic view, religion should have disappeared long ago – it can barely be explained at all. But the opposite has happened. This is inexplicable except for the existence of some unnamed “forces” – or the Catholic view, which seems more reasonable, that God has created religion as integral to human culture. God did that for a reason.

Religions are valuable heritages from both the God and our ancestor. It was derived from their differences. The lack of knowledge in the past prevented our ancestors from understanding the “reality” (our world / this planet). Hence, many interpretations of the Gods by the religions are their imaginations. As history goes on, the nature of religions changed into organizations or official institutions. Conflicts among political parties and countries usually had close ties with them. After entering the age of industrializations, the influence of religions has almost been eliminated. However, the prolonged regional peace and the international conflicts in some regions have driven the world into camps. The former one e.g. Hong Kong created a spawn for the God (the manipulator / a higher level of lives) to spread religions by her unique form of presence. The latter is a common identity for countries in international conflicts. To be more specific, **religions are no longer healthy to our world. **They cannot save us from food and water crisis and help us to cope with the overpopulation worldwide. We need only charities and other **NGOs **to (3) minimize the cost of administrations and (2) unite the religious groups to act against the growing stress bought by over-population and worsening global environment. (1) By realizing the real physical presence of the God is exactly the Earth, it allows the public to make their minds clear. *Life has a start. There must be an end. *We then understand how serious environmental problems can be. The process of aging i.e. desertification (the permanent removal of living tissues) can only be slowdown.

That’s an interesting observation. We could ask where hierarchies come from also. Categorizations, for example, of individuals is something that occurs outside of the limits of physical-nature. It’s non-material.

**If it is “non-material”, the God is only an ideal and exists in your imaginations only. **The denial of the physical nature of this subject is actually an escape from reality.

I’m very open to any scientific evidence you might have that proves my suggestion to be false. If people are compensated in the afterlife, then that is a fact, not a deception.

Nobody can criticize things that do not exist. Remember the King’s clothes? Soul unseen. Dead bodies not. We have the heaven on the Earth.

Do you accept the scientific evidence which evaluates the quality and quantity of suffering that Christ endured? Along with that, how about the theological evidence that explains why Christ endured the suffering that He embraced?

… the study could continue on the subject of the Martyrs of the Coliseum for example.
How much did they suffer?
Why did they suffer?
What did suffering mean to them?

I saw 1 billion people in hunger, 30,000 detained without trials and tortured in NATO camp in Iraq. By the way, we have a priest wants to burn Koran and the Muslims burnt Bible.

How much they suffer from the nonsense?
We have only a small and fragile planet.

Teru Wong

 

[reggieM]

**The former one e.g. Hong Kong created a spawn for the God (the manipulator / a higher level of lives) to spread religions by her unique form of presence. The latter is a common identity for countries in international conflicts.{/quote]

I think Hong Kong has an important role to play in the future development of peace in the region.

I saw 1 billion people in hunger, 30,000 detained without trials and tortured in NATO camp in Iraq.

 

[kk23wong]

I’m not sure what you’re advocating, but if your point is that nihilistic-mysticism which denies the sanctity of the human person and the goodness of God’s creation – is something bad, then I fully agree.

The Catholic religion is a unity of material and physical.
Our desire for eternal happiness is fulfilled through the material of our life, our body, God’s creation on earth.

Life is short. Eternal happiness laid on unrealistic ideas.
It goes too far from reality, which you can see daily in every news media.
Almost everyone who gets access to internet is now, in some sense, omnificent.

We cannot read people’s thoughts though.
However, we know what is happening all around the world.
And the world never likes the promises in the Holy Bible.

The scripts are written billion years later than the creation of the Earth and lasted for 2,000 years. It is already a heritage.

Faith is an escape from facts.
We don’t know is it the God to enforce her own will on us or some of us want to escape from reality or it is an excuse to unite power camps in international conflicts.

Religions are valuable heritage.
It is unhealthy if anyone fails to realize the truth.

The manipulator makes us laugh at the scientists (who ever has scientific minds can be one of those) and forces us to admit her well beings in a world with 1 billion people in hunger (according to the FAO).

Torturing refers to both physical and mental.
The manipulations from the God (a higher level of lives / with a very high level of intelligence) stopped us from telling others her true presence.

If human beings are “life cycles” of this planet from a biological prospective,
all lives must have ended inside.
The situation is similar to **the slaves **in pyramid.

Eye witness of the God remains doubt.
You can be one of those who hear the God’s words.
If the God does not admit her true presence and only keep “silence”,
she will only be an illusion in our world forever.
This would be a curse from the God herself.
It is very upset to see a billion-year-old living thing to go so wrong.

We all know the truth.
We are interconnected with the God and must have contact with her at least once in our life.

If everyone afraid of telling the truth, our world / this planet will be the greatest joke in our universe. I strongly believe in it.

**Everyone tells lies about their actual view on the God **and follow the words of our ancestors (religions).

They have not enough knowledge to understand the real presence of the God in the ancient time. We fix it with FAITH.
It is the greatest mistake ever.

There are no surprises that lives have hierarchies.
The physical presence of the God is the Earth and human beings (the whole Biosphere) are her “life cycles”

Nobody can deny something it is the truth.
Come one and argue with it.
It does not like SOUL (the King’s Clothes / the Emperor’s New Clothes).
You can question on the basic principles of this scientific hypothesis.

Lives are LIVES IN DIFFERENT LEVELS.

Teru Wong

 

[reggieM]

The manipulator makes us laugh at the scientists (who ever has scientific minds can be one of those) and forces us to admit her well beings in a world with 1 billion people in hunger (according to the FAO).

I think I understand your point of view. It’s your belief that science alone, can provide the solution to the very real problem you’ve encountered. Or at least, that religion cannot help at all.

Almost all of the world’s undernourished live in developing countries. In Asia and the Pacific, an estimated 642 million people are suffering from chronic hunger; in Sub-Saharan Africa 265 million; in Latin America and the Caribbean 53 million; in the Near East and North Africa 42 million; and in developed countries 15 million in total.

The Catholic people throughout the world, especially in Western nations have continued to provide relief for people everywhere – including in places where the Church herself is persecuted or forbidden.

It’s our belief, however, that science and material aid alone are not sufficient to solve the crisis. We believe that the Catholic religion itself is an essential part of the solution.

The reason “why” is best discussed on another thread.

If you can connect your thoughts here back to the Argument from Desire, then that would be more on-topic.

Again, the hungry have desires.
You, yourself, have desire that all the hungry will be fed.
Why do you desire that?
Why do you not want to see other people suffering?
Are you concerned, for example, with people who are already dead who may be suffering?

Catholics are called by God to feed the hungry. Why? Are there consequences?

You are concerned about being “the joke of the universe”.

Will you ever know if you’re being laughed at? What difference does it make?

As I see it, your religious views are your motivation.
Therefore, religion is actually more important than your views on reality – since religion shapes what you consider to be reality.

 

[kk23wong]

I am not concerned about being “the joke of the universe” because our world (the Earth) is already a joke.

First, technology is mature enough to figure out the real presence of the subject manipulating the world. By applying basic principles of biology and the advancement in whole-cell biology, we can have a clue how microscopic life forms reveal the hierarchies of lives in our universe. They are all similar but in different scales. If we compare human beings (to be more specific, I am referring to the Biosphere) as “life cycles”, the structure of this giant organism (or Supreme Being) will be revealed. I stress again that it is not a new religion, deism or pantheism. The hierarchy of lives is a logical explanation to our origin. All life comes from the existing lives. A higher level of lives gives birth to the lower levels in layered structure. Then our whole universe is a living being. The thinking regions (a central nerve system in living organisms on the Earth) must be found in every living thing. Otherwise, they are only living tissues. It can be a **new form of metaphysics **and a new cosmology based on science. The rigid in our technology avoid us from intruding the mantle (i.e. chromatin) from reaching the core (the nucleus). We can have a more simple comparison in the Atmosphere & Hydrosphere (cytoplasm). Biosphere is the life cycles. The evolution of the species is actually a process of growth of the planet herself. Nothing out of the circle. The life cycles will eventually come to an end. Be noted that “reproduction” are also counted as life cycles. It can be carried out inside the body even in some species found inside the Earth. The permanent removal of the living tissues (biomass) is a process of aging. We refer it to “desertification” which cannot be recovered. It can only be slowdown. It does not violate the principles of biology. In fact, we have to compare our civilizations (3,000 years of written history) with the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years old). It makes us clear of our position in this planet and it is very close to “life cycles”. The oldest man is only 122 (with proofs) and the Earth stands a billion years. After reading the above flow of minds, you may have a clue why religions are heritages. They come up only 2,000 years. There is 4 billion years ahead. I have no doubt that I have a breakthrough in cosmology by putting forward my scientific hypothesis. Time will show its validity.

Second, you are avoiding my question. Many wonder why the God created the world with pains and asked us to serve for an afterlife. I have no offenses to the followers of the God, but I am questioning the God herself. It is very likely that the God has her power from birth and used this gifted power to create religions. The God herself is a part of this giant living entity. In which, we refer it to the universe. The conflicts between human decisions (allow me to name it as fate) and the will of the God (destinies) come up from natural role from the very beginning. It is a very logical explanation for the unsolved questions of the pains many are suffering from. Physical constraints cannot be held. The God is interconnected with us mentally and physically, but natural rules cannot be broken. Hence, the God is also innocent. Undoubtedly, the God has to take up some of the responsibilities since she is eternal to all of us. The whole system of our world has failed. We have to admit it. Again, please do not void my question. If the God only exists in your imaginations support by FAITH (which I considered it not as a logical reason – I strongly believe in what I believed and being written in scriptures a thousand year ago), the God is only an ideal. The real presence (which account for the start of many religions) must be the Earth herself. She is our mother cell and the manipulator (the nucleus) of this world. Why not dare to speak out? It is a breakthrough in our cosmology and a NEW understanding of the true nature of the universe that we may able to prove its validity in our future.

Third, I admit that religions have it merit inside. Mortality taught by almost all religions give us a guide to behave. However, the merits limited to our moral codes not until it started to stop us from searching for reality. It is not healthy if it prevents science and philosophy to advance. It is a progress of human beings, as a part of this planet (our world). We have already found our origin. It is so close and we are already inside. The point is to increase public awareness of our true presence. It allows us to rethink our position in this planet and helps to push birth control policy and increase our efforts in establishing and improve our recycle networks.

It is the end of all religions and the final stage for entering the era of rationality.
Faith does not help to feed the hunger. Our recognitions of being a part of our world help to save humanity. If scientists and philosophers refuse to admit a new cosmology based on scientific illustrations, they have betrayed their identities.

Truth is always one. No one is always true.
Desires come from birth.
Arguments come up with different stances. It depends on horizons.

Teru Wong

 

[reggieM]

That’s a long and complex response Teru – I’ll give what response I can.

I am not concerned about being “the joke of the universe” because our world (the Earth) is already a joke.

To me, the earth is not a joke. When we make a joke about something, we’re looking down on it. What is the perspective of the jokesters in this case?

First, technology is mature enough to figure out the real presence of the subject manipulating the world.

Yes, but the field of technology usually avoids the topic.

By applying basic principles of biology and the advancement in whole-cell biology, we can have a clue how microscopic life forms reveal the hierarchies of lives in our universe.

Hierarchies and categorizations are subjective, immaterial, philosophical and non-scientific entities. Science cannot prove that there are any hierarchies of being since that requires a value judgement on the kind of being observed.

They are all similar but in different scales.

I fully agree – but I would bring this to the Argument from Perfection, where we measure scales of value – ascending the hierarchy to perfection.

If we compare human beings (to be more specific, I am referring to the Biosphere) as “life cycles”, the structure of this giant organism (or Supreme Being) will be revealed.

As above, I find this to be a good argument. We recognize some things as having greater value and goodness than others. This is measured against the Ultimate Goodness, or Perfection.

I stress again that it is not a new religion, deism or pantheism.

How is the belief that “God is the Universe” different from pantheism?

The hierarchy of lives is a logical explanation to our origin. All life comes from the existing lives. A higher level of lives gives birth to the lower levels in layered structure. Then our whole universe is a living being. The thinking regions (a central nerve system in living organisms on the Earth) must be found in every living thing.

That’s an interesting theory. Since I believe that cognition is an immaterial process, then the nervous system here would be immaterial also. Or, perhaps we could call it a “soul” in the universe – or better, God’s presence acting in and with nature and the universe itself.

It can be a **new form of metaphysics **and a new cosmology based on science.

I can’t see a new metaphysics based on science since science is subordinate to any metaphysics (except for atheistic-scientism). But perhaps people could expand their thoughts beyond materialism. Personally, I think the old metaphysics offers many treasures which haven’t been fully explored yet.

Second, you are avoiding my question. Many wonder why the God created the world with pains and asked us to serve for an afterlife.

Bringing it to the Argument from Desire - God created the world so that His creatures could experience desire for goodness. We can only truly know goodness when contrasting it with evil.

 

[kk23wong]

That’s a long and complex response Teru – I’ll give what response I can.

To me, the earth is not a joke. When we make a joke about something, we’re looking down on it. What is the perspective of the jokesters in this case?

Yes, but the field of technology usually avoids the topic.

The joke laid on the nature of science and philosophy. They are both searching for the truth but not to please the God and those who have faiths. The field of technology avoids it not because of their professions. They failed to round up all the things to get a final conclusion which close to the nature of our world and the presence of the subject as the manipulator (the God).

Hierarchies and categorizations are subjective, immaterial, philosophical and non-scientific entities. Science cannot prove that there are any hierarchies of being since that requires a value judgment on the kind of being observed.

I fully agree – but I would bring this to the Argument from Perfection, where we measure scales of value – ascending the hierarchy to perfection.

The hierarchies of lives are not only categorizations. It has deepened our understandings on the nature of lives. Science does not depend on values. Our perceptions cannot disturb the reality of the outside world

As above, I find this to be a good argument. We recognize some things as having greater value and goodness than others. This is measured against the Ultimate Goodness, or Perfection.

The concept of perfections is an ideal. This subject (as Catholic named her “the God”) must exist in reality. Nobody has faith can deny the presence of this subject since it is a part of their religions. If the God does not really exist, their religions are only spiritual. Then it has no ways to influence philosophy and science.

How is the belief that “God is the Universe” different from pantheism?

The God (in all religions) is actually the conscious EARTH. Lives have hierarchies. The presence of the central nerve systems make clear of the definitions of living things. Be noted that the God (including in Catholic) is “OMNISCIENT**”.** The presence of single-Len eyes and stomachs in coral reefs and jellyfish do not necessarily imply them as the living things but living tissues instead. You can refer to my whole set of theories in my websites. It is not a belief but one of the actual possibilities to find out the truth behind all myths and religions. “Lives in different levels” is something really different from other assumptions before. If you read through all the things and refer it to your daily life, you may have a clue what is the role of religions in our world and how they actually work. Psychology is a tool for manipulation. There are “no worries to find a suitable pretext if you would like to find fault with someone”. The God manipulate the world by changing our perceptions over matters and often involved in inappropriate behaviors such as torturing (both mental and physical) to achieve her ideals. No matter how her initial motives are, she has failed us and distorted our world. Everyone is like a small piece of puzzles and we try to fix ourselves into a general picture to become the world we are now living in. The approaches by the God are incorrect. The conflicts between the God and human beings have resulted in great pains. Many people are forced to enter the “silence”. Others suffer from poverty and hunger (it is used to be thirst now). I am telling my observations from the reality not the books. It sounds nothing by quoting people’s words. You may share the same comment with me if you read the daily news. By the way, you have to understand that our so-called world only restricted inside the EARTH from the very beginning of history until now.

That’s an interesting theory. Since I believe that cognition is an immaterial process, then the nervous system here would be immaterial also. Or, perhaps we could call it a “soul” in the universe – or better, God’s presence acting in and with nature and the universe itself.

I can’t see a new metaphysics based on science since science is subordinate to any metaphysics (except for atheistic-scientism). But perhaps people could expand their thoughts beyond materialism. Personally, I think the old metaphysics offers many treasures which haven’t been fully explored yet.

Bringing it to the Argument from Desire - God created the world so that His creatures could experience desire for goodness. We can only truly know goodness when contrasting it with evil.

Thank you. I have no offenses but putting forward a new cosmology by gaining attentions. I am a part of our world and I would like to contribute by telling the truth (limited to my knowledge). However, my words are very straight-forward and sincere. I do not sigh and mourn for the deaths. I am telling you the figures of deaths. I do not admire or condemn the God. I am telling you her presence and the approaches of manipulations. The well-beings and wrongdoings of the God are happening every day around us. The daily news is the reality of our world.

Philosophy and science have to be loyal to knowledge (reality / truth). If the possibilities that the hierarchies of lives exist, ones must have to speak out. Otherwise, the “life cycles” of the EARTH (a Supreme Being without violating any natural rules / a higher level of lives) may come to an end faster. In another word, we are murdering our children’s future. We continue to give births even we know that they must all be dead. It is not a responsible behaviour.

The ideas of good and evil cannot be implied on desires.

Teru Wong

 

[kk23wong]

Sorry for my typing errors “OMNIFICENT” should be “OMNISCIENT”.

The God (including the Catholic) must be omniscient.

As mentioned above, the internet has granted us the same ability. Not including reading people thoughts, of course.

By the way, you can have the brief summary in
sites.google.com/site/teru382/publications/others/summary.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

**Desires **can be explained by science, through experiments conducted on our nervous systems. *A higher intelligence gives rise to self-consciousness. *It diversified after reaching the equilibrium. *Selfishness is a relative concept. *Desires of being worshipped come from minds. It first requires a self-identity.

Teru Wong

 

[kk23wong]

Sorry for my typing errors “OMNIFICENT” should be “OMNISCIENT”.

The God (including the Catholic) must be omniscient.

As mentioned above, the internet has granted us the same ability. Not including reading people thoughts, of course.

By the way, you can have the brief summary in
sites.google.com/site/teru382/publications/others/summary.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

**Desires **can be explained by science, through experiments conducted on our nervous systems. *A higher intelligence gives rise to self-consciousness. *It diversified after reaching the equilibrium. *Selfishness is a relative concept. *Desires of being worshipped come from minds. It first requires a self-identity.

Teru Wong

Sorry for my silly mistake again.

I am using the free online dictionary in Yahoo! Hong Kong
hk.dictionary.yahoo.com

“OMNIFICENT” is no different from “OMNISCIENT”

However, the below data cannot be mistakes

[1] World population in 2025 reaches 8.039 billion (UNFPA) and around two-thirds (5.359 billion) will suffer from medium to severe water stress (UN 1997)

[2] 8.8 million under five deaths in 2008. Around 24,000 children (aged under five) die every day. (SOWC)

Can the God still be “all-good”?