“Real gold” is a bit... imprecise- and here is why.
There is a big difference between “real gold” and “pure gold,” as many gold items are “real” but not pure. It isn’t all about money either- it’s about brains. Pure gold has certain properties as a metal- “pure” gold is very soft. That’s great for instance if you want to make a very thin sheet of gold- not as great if you want to make an item with lots of fine details or that is big and heavy without structural bracing as it can easily be damaged- or even deform under its own weight.
Commonly- gold used for making things is gold alloy such as 14k gold- looks like gold, has gold in it so is still “gold,” but isn’t as soft as purer gold and the alloys can give it properties suited for its use. There’s also gold plating vs. solid gold. Outer gold is well suited for gold plating. It’s soft and you can say “24K GOLD!”.... “plated...” So you might have a good alloy core with gold plating that is “solid gold plated” or you might have a ceramic or other structure which is then plated in 24k gold so that it appear to be solid gold and feels like solid gold to the touch and surface testing- but isn’t actually gold entirely. This can also be used to save weight- not for cost- but because the look and prestige or real gold are wanted- but for the application and engineering abilities etc a solid metal piece isn’t realistically feasible for the structure and installation.
Now- this is an important thing to know in this discussion- because the melting point of gold alloy can be MUCH lower than that of pure gold. What’s more- the “average” building fire temperature is a guide- not a rule- and well- as pointed out the cathedral isn’t exactly an “average building” is it?
Can’t tell you what that means. Wasn’t there taking measurements and I am woefully under informed about the average fire temperature of centuries old cathedrals. I can tel you this- house fires can get much hotter than average. In fact- if you speak with guys who do disaster cleanups and fire cleanups and such- they have in fact seen melted gold- or alloys. They’re there to clean not test the purity of metals- in burnt down buildings. They also see things like papers not in any sort of special containment survive fires that raise foundations.
The average person has a home- but millions of homeless people suggest the reality can be quite off the average. In s true story- I got to work this morning and found out my coworkers wife died this morning. They are about 40. Oddly- the fact that the average person lives much longer than 40, or that the average kid will never have their school shot up- don’t actually mean anything when we are taking about a specific case of something.
Considering the maximum observed temperatures in buildings- the fact that real humans have observed melted gold (likely alloys) in building fires- and we do not know the composition of construction of this particular cross- scientifically we cannot rule out that it SHOULD have melted. Even if gold does not melt in a fire it CAN be damaged by the fire as well- and heat makes soft metals softer even if it does not melt them. You don’t need to melt hard plastic to get it to be easily deformed by force do you? The heat weakens the bonds and without melting it may deform from stress.
Is this a miracle? Not my department. I deal in science. Science says it COULD have melted or been deformed or badly damaged. The conditions could have reached those where it SHOULD have been- or likely would have been. But- I do not have data on those conditions nor do I have data on any miracle or external force that could prevent a known reaction. So call it whatever you want but there isn’t anything I’ve seen that confirms any particular hypothesis.
Believe- or don’t believe in whatever gods one might choose- one might say it is rude to mock whatever another may choose or not- that’s personal opinion- but what I can say is I see several flaws in your logic.
There is an inherent assumption that the role of ones god must be that of “superhero” who protects humans from all harm including themselves. The question there is- what would be better in your eyes- a “god” that lets people do bad things- or a “god” that acts as a form of predestination preventing all harms- but in so Doug removing individual choice? If such a god existed then you’d have no more choice to believe in them- they would simply force you to do so- or, the fact you don’t believe in them would just be because they forced you to not believe right? So either your disbelief in a god is evidence of their existence as a force that compels humans and you have no choice anyway- or the possibility exists such god either doesn’t exist- or doesn’t directly force humans to act a certain way.
Ok. So we can forget possibility 1- there’s no point discussing it because if such a god exists that takes the free will of men and controls us all to the moment- then everything we do right now is them making us do it- we have no choice- and a discussion will end only one way- the way they choose. That would leave 2 possibilities worth discussing- either no god exists- or a god exists that allows free will.
If no god exists- this is all a math problem. There is no purpose to anything we do or say beyond whatever purpose and significance we give it. We exist to fulfill whatever desires we have in life and then we die- and whatever happens or not- transpires. Then IF there is no god and IF the only purpose to consciousness is to give importance to whatever we want to- to use our time in a way which makes us feel we didn’t waste our lives- then IF one chooses to follow a nation or a tv show or a sport or a god- and that thing- which in this scenario is ultimately meaningless and only exists to fill our time here or leave some legacy for the future- makes them feel they have spent their life well- then there isn’t an issue is there? If you want to become a video game master or be the best person at throwing a ball into a hoop, or making splotches on canvas- all are equally pointless unless you personally see a point to them no?
Now IF- we say there is a god(s) and they allow free will- then you can’t allow Free will without allowing harm can you? Is it your argument- that no country which prizes individual freedom of rights or any form of self reliance is worth ones allegiance for example? Would you say- that if you were dating, or looking for a company- that a unless the entity in question used their power and force to compel you to behave to the standards that they deem as “right,” and restricted your abilities to make decisions to only those which could do no harm to yourself and others- that you would say it isn’t worth your time? That no set of rules that doesn’t prevent any and all harm is worthless or inherently evil?
If a comedian is to tell a joke- but that joke must not offend or hurt ANYONE or ANYTHING anywhere in the world- what joke would they tell that not a single person could have any issue with? How colorful would that world be?
Now- the Christian God- “following them” requires adherence to certain rules- murdering and raping are not allowed for those who follow this god- and those who do such things are not following this god are they? That’s somewhat like saying you’re a vegan who eats meat at every meal isn’t it? In fact- your examples largely go contrary to your assertions- if anything cases of rape and murder would be arguments that more people should follow at least the basic principals laid down by this God- stuff like- don’t rape and murder. By default- if more people followed them those things would be reduced or eliminated. Of course one doesn’t need to believe in or follow a god to have a system or morality- but to the point the idea that not following a god would be better- the evidence suggests that is not the case and at best we could call it a wash.
So all in all your argument makes certain assumptions that have no basis (such as knowing the capabilities or machinations aka will of a supposed omnipotent being- which if said being didn’t exist would not be possible as they don’t exist- and of said being did exist would not be possible unless you yourself were omnipotent and omnipresent.) There are fundamental flaws in the reasoning as well- and the statements made ignore all aspects of the tenants of said religion- or its lore which explains clearly as possible without invalidating the need for omnipotence to understand omnipotence) why the world isn’t sunshine and rainbows 24/7 from the internal logic of their theology.
Additionally you make an argument of equivalencies that can’t be reconciled. What is a worse crime: killing a child; raping a woman?
What if it’s 2 children, or 6 women? Is a genocide worse than an ethnic cleansing? If you kill a million Quickly or torture 1,00,000 slowly and brutally which is worse? Would a person rather live in a world without music or a world without sadness if they could trade one for the other? There are people who would die to protect a work of art or history for example- who would gladly give their life if it meant the Pyramids would still stand or the Apollo capsule was preserved. So... what is the equivalency?
When you say in essence- what kind of god would protect an ancient cross instead of a murder victim- what’s the metrics there? How do you weight an artifact of history that has brought, brings, and likely will bring positive feelings and historical relevance for many many human lifetimes to untold millions- possibly uncountable numbers into the future- vs a human life which might last- 100 years at the outside? How do we weight the abstracts of what one entity contributes to another?
You really can’t. You can say that a “bad” thing is “bad,” and perhaps you would prefer to drown than to freeze to death- that’s somewhat relative though. Given the choice to save the lives of either 50 senior citizens or 10 children- who a person saves and why isn’t something we can guess with anything approaching 100% consensus. Given the choice between hundreds of millions of people being able to live amazing lives at the cost that some number of people will live less charmed lives to make that happen- well... your computer wasn’t likely assembled by happy and well paid middle class folks in a developed country was it?
The batteries in that electric car that is meant to save the planet were likely largely mined by essentially slaves- and or the tiny hands of children. Choosing between their suffering and the planet- or even just having to spend money on gasoline instead of saving cash- society is choosing electric cars are we not?
So then in your logic- you pin the wrongs of man- the choices of man- on an abstract entity that we cannot confirm scientifically exists. Why would one be concerned with what a god that may or may not exist lets happen when no matter what the scenario- in a world where you and I have freewill- then these choices are made by people. People who ascribe to be better than they are- wether that is through religion or otherwise- but who genuinely try to do well- aren’t really part of that problem are they? If a god would tell you not to murder and rape, and to help other people in trouble- are they so bad? If you would instead of follow that god- drag them along and use them as a tool for their own ends- that isn’t the same is it?
wow don't know where to start first if you want to have a discussion you got to cut the bullshit down. I mean the first 100 words or so are about no god which has nothing to do with the meme or even what I wrote. were talking about the belief of god melting a cross or not and your off talking about batteries. part of a good theological discussion yes part of this meme not at all. from there you go on and on but never come to a conclusion on what you even believe just all statements about what you don't believe or might not believe. you posted 13 times in a row but the majority of it is either you don't know because you don't know the will of god or its possible god works in mysterious ways. i wrote 2 sentences and you know what my feeling are about this. you wrote 13 posts and no clue what you believe about god and the situation with the cross in any of the posts. you really need to cut it down to 2 or 3 posts and try to stay on topic.
I didn’t come here to say what MY beliefs about the universe are. I came here to say what my beliefs about the conclusion you made are- citing the logic used because just popping in and posting “nuh uh” is not only pointless since you have no reason to take my word nor any idea WHY I am saying there is an issue; but because that would be disrespectful. You’re entitled to whatever beliefs you want to have but I am just saying that the logic is faulty near as I can tell- and if you would like to consider that, there is my proof, if you’d like to refute it, you have my proofs to refute if they are faulty.
The seeming paradox there is resolved by the fact that the only reason I was compelled to point out the flaw was that the statement made by you was not one of your belief- but one which attacks others beliefs by stating that their god is somehow not one worthy of worship. I countered that we can ultimately say that is not a true statement- regardless of how the pie is sliced such activities are at the least no less worthy of any other activities humans choose to do.
Well, rachee makes some good points but I can't fully agree with him. Guest_did get a bit off topic but your points were still interesting and relevant enough to shed a broader light on the discussion. As for @rachee you're expressing intentional narrowmindedness in your original comment so I would just quit now, bud.
ok post by post. your post number 2 inherent assumption that the role of ones god must be that of “superhero" this is not an assumption its a gold cross so christian, an all-powerful and all-knowing god. and i don't think any religion thinks god dose or should protect from all harm and definitely not the christian one. so starting on a faulty assumption. from there you assume black or white either free will or total control obviously wrong god can give you free will to rob a bank but can make your gun jam to save some ones life probably better scenarios but you get the point. once you take a way the black or white the rest of that post falls apart. next couple post we skip there possibility 1 no god but at the bottom of post 4, equally pointless unless you personally see a point to them no? yes but take it next step no god means universe will die 5 billion years taking with it all man has accomplished so you can pretend what we do matters but all would truly be equally pointless.
next post 5 yes god could do free will and no harm. free will I tell you don't shoot at people but its your decision but if you do I make you miss every shot. again better scenarios but you get it. so skip the rest of the black and white free will stuff and we come to post 8 the christian god. you start right off on a false assumption followers can't commit crime. well of corse they can and god even set it up that they can do bad and still follow the religion. im not religious so not much info on the whole jesus dying for sins and baptism and also confessional booth and hell marry's and what ever else. and true we don't need to worship god for good morality but a lot of people are too stupid to make a moral choice so following a god is better for morality depending on the teaching of that particular religion of corse. post 9 again cross so christian so all-powerful not an assumption a fact of their belief. not sure wich lore you're referring to about rainbows 24/7
other that god works in mysterious ways. post 10 not talking about killing a child or raping a woman were talking about saving a cross or doing some thing better with gods power like save a child or stop a rape. of coarse this is where it is a faulty assumption that if there is said gods he can only do one task not both but that's because of the scenario I started with my post. the rest is all questions about man and moral choices just way to big of a topic to get in to. post 11 how do i explain? the value we put on the cross because of time has no meaning to a true believer the cross is just a symbol to pray to. for a true believer the cross could be made out of Popsicle sticks as long as its blessed or what not it becomes a holy item. basically don't think of fine art with the cross think a country's flag, new flag old flag doesn't matter.
a true believer wont let harm come to the flag and will be just as protective of a new flag fresh out of the plastic bag as of an old flag to the point there is a ritual to dispose of a flag properly with respect. of coarse this is theoretical most true believers in religion seem to have gone off the deep end long ago or are corrupt from power thinking Inquisition on that one. rest of post morality stuff again interesting but to big to talk a bout properly. post 14 no I pin the wrongs of man on man and the wrongs of god on god. I chose to believe the cross didn't burn because of the way the path of the fire went not that there was a god saving a cross and not a child. but if it was a god saving the cross and not a child then i don't believe it's a god worth worshiping. this is all from a human point of view and going by personal morals. for all we know he didn't save the child because the child was the next Hitler.
or he did saved the cross because in the future it would defeat satan and save million but that brings us back to the moral questions whats a life worth and are all lives equal. i skipped a lot because there was a lot of the same moral question but from different angles but didn't purposely avoid anything so if i missed some thing let me know.
I don’t know that you missed anything content wise- but I think you missed my points in a few places. Starting with “black or white” on free will- taking your free will sometimes is still taking your free will. It isn’t free will if I allow you to the things I’m ok with and stop you when I don’t like your choices- that isn’t free will- that is simply not total control. As you say- black and white thinking- things aren’t either “free will” or “no free will.”
By example- if you were married and your spouse “allowed you” to see the friends she liked and do certain activities- but forbid that you see friends she didn’t like or do certain things- could you say you have a healthy relationship and you are free to do whatever you want? Well... technically you have free will there- you can choose to go against your spouses wishes if you like. But what if they watched you constantly and overpowered you and literally used their power to stop you? That isn’t free will is it? Would you say that’s ok- to lock a spouse in a room, or drug their food, or overpower them and stop them from making choices you don’t like? Is that what you would do? Is that a god people should follow?
As for the “hero” comment- it’s inherent to your original proposition- that instead of saving a cross a god could or should be put saving people. That’s what superheroes do. They have magical powers and spend all day saving cats stuck in trees or stopping bank robberies. Can’t tell you what an all powerful omnipotent eternal being does with their day- never been one.
But- using whatever logical powers we have that may or may not apply here but might be the closest we can get to understanding the situation in our terms- if there is a god, and that god created the world- that god created this world. So why would you create a world where bad things can even happen just so you can go around stopping bad things?
Think about that. You say: “god could make the bullet miss.” Yes. But god could have made it so humans can’t design weapons, or that humans didn’t have or need impulses like violence, or that getting shot felt nice and made you feel like you were eating cotton candy. God could have made us all bullet proof so that nothing can hurt us- or made us so we can’t hurt each other no matter how hard we try.
Our world exists by a set of mechanical principals which we document with science. If there is a god- science is out r attempt to understand the rules by which they made the universe. If you picture the universe as a video game- a god is the programmer, scientists are like modders- pouring over gods code trying to understand it so they can change the parts they want to change- but no modder yet has cracked the code open and figures out how to rewrite the whole program. The engine is what it is and we are ultimately limited to the constraints of what the master programmer built this world on.
It could be intentional- these rules by which the universe works could be designed so that we could someday figure them out. I can’t say- but math is the closest humans get to reading the handwriting of god/the universe.
So if there is a god- they created a system of well defined and complex rules and interdependencies. An all powerful being with a supposed plan that supposedly doesn’t make mistakes didn’t do that by accident did they? Things word as they work- we know that to be true because... the universe works. Here we are. That’s independent of belief. It just is. So the question of why a god wouldn’t save this person or that person vs a cross- it inherently implies a superhero because a god would just build a world where those things weren’t issues- unless they served some purpose. The fact we can’t see the purpose is our failing- that’s science. We could see birds fly before we understood how or why birds flew. We can see quanta and record gravity but we can’t yet say how or why certain things happen- but through science we hope to uncover the purpose within the universe for the unknown.
To 10 and 11- It’s all very philosophical. Why does anyone care about all the ancient crap in museums? Someday- the $2 hairbrush you bought at Walmart might be worth millions of dollars because it’s a 2 of a kind thousands year old artifact. Your cheap ikea desk might be worth thousands because it’s made of that crappy particle board and only antique furniture is made to such quality and of actual wood based materials. It’s all relative. A true believer needs no cross I’m sure- yet I cannot judge the strength of another’s faith or the truth of their religious convictions or beliefs:
And religions on the whole seem to love their symbols and their temples and such. A god that is everywhere can be worshipped in a park or in your holy persons living room I’m sure. The Kaaba, Mecca, Jerusalem, on and on. If we found a scrap of toilet paper used by a supposed prophet or the petrified dung of a holy figure I suspect that would have powerful meaning in the hearts of millions.
But beyond that- flaw in logic- one doesn’t have to be religious to be impacted by said cross. Context of the discussion- Notredame cathedral fire. Was everyone that donated money or got upset a devout catholic or Christian even? No. Because these are very historic artifacts. These are part of a cultural heritage and literary and pop culture heritage. These are objects that to many are artistic and not religious in nature, sentimental, etc. the attachment or being impacted by such things isn’t purely religious any more than one must be Shinto or Buddhist to be moved and affected by the many historic shrines of Asia-Muslim to be in awe at the historic Mosques of the world and the history they’ve seen and been part of.
10-11 also speak to the fact we really can’t put equivalencies on bad things- the examples are to help understand the issue and prevent misunderstanding like we seem to have here.
ya for the most part we're on the same page i think or at the least understand where each other is coming from. the thing we don't agree on is a dead horse we could beat for days but that's just too much work for a sight called funsubstance not to mention things aren't getting done because im messing around on here to much. so i think this is a good place to quit. but it was an interesting chat. and I'm sure we'll do it again some time.
I respect and appreciate your time and perspective on this. Thank you, I felt like it was a good discussion as well and enjoyed it. Good luck getting everything done- almost Friday- good and bad as far as that goes!
There is a big difference between “real gold” and “pure gold,” as many gold items are “real” but not pure. It isn’t all about money either- it’s about brains. Pure gold has certain properties as a metal- “pure” gold is very soft. That’s great for instance if you want to make a very thin sheet of gold- not as great if you want to make an item with lots of fine details or that is big and heavy without structural bracing as it can easily be damaged- or even deform under its own weight.
What if it’s 2 children, or 6 women? Is a genocide worse than an ethnic cleansing? If you kill a million Quickly or torture 1,00,000 slowly and brutally which is worse? Would a person rather live in a world without music or a world without sadness if they could trade one for the other? There are people who would die to protect a work of art or history for example- who would gladly give their life if it meant the Pyramids would still stand or the Apollo capsule was preserved. So... what is the equivalency?