"The Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning-CV-16 has *reportedly* docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, according to DEBKAfile, an Israeli military intelligence website based in Jerusalem." This is what Alex Jones reported on Infowars.com. so ? http://www.infowars.com/chinese-aircraf … tus-syria/
So to summarize your argument: 1) We now know there are lots of planets in the universe that may be capable of developing and sustaining life. 2) Therefore it is conceited to believe we are the most intelligent beings in the universe. 3) Other intelligent beings may be more intelligent than us.
1) Just because we know there are other planets capable of sustaining life elsewhere in the universe, it does not necessarily follow that there is life elsewhere in the universe. That is a non-sequitur; 2) Even if there is life elsewhere in the universe, it does not necessarily follow that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. That is a non sequitur also; 3) Even if there were intelligent life in the universe, it does not necessarily follow that this life is superior in intelligence to human beings.
Those non sequiturs make the argument logically invalid, but can be removed:
1) There are lots of planets in the universe capable of developing and sustaining life. 2) It is possible that life exists elsewhere in the universe (from 1). 3) As far as we know, intelligent life on earth developed from the chemical elements found on earth. 4) The chemical elements found on earth are present elsewhere in the universe. 5) It is possible that intelligent life has developed elsewhere in the universe (from 1, 2, 3 and 4).
The logical conclusion from the premises presented, is that intelligent life may exist elsewhere in the universe. The notion of superior intelligence is not logically supported (or refuted) by those premises. That is a leap of logic that invalidates the argument. To support that conclusion, you would need additional premises. In short: logic does not dictate "there is a higher power" (at least from the premises you have presented).
Influencing the world toward perfection is a worthwhile goal for individuals or groups of individuals.
No. The fact is, the earth is too gigantic to be influenced by individuals or groups.
Logically, only individuals can transform themselves. If ALL people transform, enlighten or become peaceful within themselves the world could become transformed. However, the world being what it is: full of delusions and human nature being what it is: full of emotions and desires, total world transformation/perfection can never become complete or it is highly unlikely. Therefore it is not a worthwhile goal to pursue, either individually or collectively.
However, one's own enlightenment is attainable and this is a worthwhile goal.
Is there a premise in there? I have no idea.
My own conclusion: Self transformation is possible as opposed to world transformation.
( … and consequently, the more people who are in touch with God within and without, the more transformed the world will become …
Ok, so your first statement is actually your conclusion. As you are arguing in the negative (saying it's not true) it needs to be changed from a positive to a negative statement. The "individuals and groups . . ." part is redundant so I've taken the liberty of removing that. Your conclusion is:
Influencing the world toward perfection is not a worthwhile goal.
Only three premises are needed from your comments to support that conclusion. I've interpreted your comments, so although the words may not be exactly the same, hopefully the meaning is:
1) It is unlikely that all people can become enlightened/ peaceful. 2) Total world enlightenment/ peace is unlikely (from 1). 3) Influencing the world toward enlightenment/ peace is not a worthwhile goal (from 1 and 2).
But this is not yet valid, as the conclusion does not necessarily follow on from the premises. An additional premise is needed to bridge the gap between 2 and 3:
1) It is unlikely that all people can become enlightened/ peaceful. 2) Total world enlightenment/ peace is unlikely (from 1). 3) A goal that is unlikely to be achieved is not a worthwhile goal. 4) Influencing the world toward enlightenment/ peace is not a worthwhile goal (from 1 , 2 and 3).
In terms of soundness: it's reasonable to believe that 1 is true. Therefore 2 is true, because it follows on from 1.
In terms of premise 3, one definition of worthwhile is: "worth the time, money, or effort spent". Is it worth spending money, time etc on something that is unlikely to be achieved? Arguably it's not. On the other hand, although paying for a lottery ticket each week is statistically unlikely to result in you winning the jackpot. Could it be argued that a tiny chance of winning a life changing amount of money is better than zero chance, so the financial outlay is worthwhile? And what about someone who performs an act of heroism. Would we describe that act as not being worthwhile because it was unlikely to ever be successful?
Although the above argument is logically valid, the soundness of the argument (the truth of the third premise) is debatable. It's a matter of opinion as to whether a goal that is unlikely to be achieved is worthwhile. Therefore it's only a matter of opinion as to whether trying to achieve worldwide enlightenment/ peace is worthwhile. The only way to make the argument valid and sound is:
1) It is unlikely that all people can become enlightened/ peaceful. 2) Total world enlightenment/ peace is unlikely (from 1). 3) A goal that is unlikely to be achieved may not be a worthwhile goal. 4) Influencing the world toward enlightenment/ peace may not be a worthwhile goal (from 1 , 2 and 3).
But again, this reduces the argument to no more than a tautology. Effectively it says: world peace/ enlightenment is either a worthwhile goal, or it isn't. This is absolutely true, but is not very meaningful. However it is exactly what I would expect to see with any argument that has at least one premise that is subjective. Because the truth of such a premise cannot be reasonably determined, such an argument can only be logically sound if qualified with the word "might".
This particular argument, after changes for validity and soundness, says: World transformation is unlikely, and it is either a worthwhile goal or it isn't (depending on what you think constitutes "worthwhile").
We need to clarify the transformation desired and specify what it is. A vision is involved. A good vision for the world is for it to be a peaceful place. Logically, the world can be transformed from how it is (full of strife) to something else, (at peace,) if every single person on the earth transforms himself into a peaceful person.
Peace is a state of even-mindedness. No anger, no emotional attachment, no hatred, no greed, no suffering or misery.
The Premise: When every person becomes even-minded, the world will become peaceful.
What about in the ocean where all the fish are eating each other? What about in the jungles where all the animals are preying on one another? Therefore, we have to specify "the world" as "the world of men."
For the world of men, peace is possible when all men, women and their children become even-minded. However, everyone knows that children are actually very hard to raise. Can we remain even-minded as parents? Can we teach children, who eventually develop their own wills, to maintain their even-mindedness?
I really don't know about this world peace thing at all.
The addition of this premise removes the need for the premises stated previously, so the argument becomes:
1) Within an infinite universe, anything that can exist, does exist. 2) Life with superior intelligence exists (from 1).
This is also non sequitur, but it can be fixed by adding a premise that links the first premise to the conclusion:
1) Within an an infinite universe, anything that can exist, does exist. 2) The universe is infinite. 3) Life with superior intelligence exists (from 1 and 2).
This argument is logically valid (the conclusion necessarily follows on from the premises). However, the argument is now logically unsound (the truth of the additional premise is questionable) because we do not know whether the universe actually is infinite. The most we can reasonably say is that it might be. So to remain logically sound, the argument has to change to:
1) Within an an infinite universe, anything that can exist, does exist. 2) The universe might be infinite. 3) Life with superior intelligence might exist (from 1 and 2).
This argument is now logically valid and logically sound, but it has been reduced to no more than a tautology in logical terms (a statement that is true under every possible evaluation, but does not say anything meaningful). For comparison another example of a tautology would be "I might be wearing a hat".
In short: logic still does not dictate "there is a higher power". The most you can reasonably say (even with the additional premise) based on what we know of the universe is that life with superior intelligence might exist.
kids are being trained to use screen technology from two on. Why would they want to go to school everyday when everything can be learned on line?? and they can learn at their own pace, according to their own interests?
We need to do the same. We have very big students sitting in desks, ordered around treated as oh so young. No free will. And don't tell the teachers, but these students have had free (self-guided) will since they were fifteen. And so they rebel, or the opposite, at the sheer ridiculousness of it all. They have new cars. They have credit cards and cell phones. They have access to any sort of info in the whole wide world and we keep them in rows, in desks. YET every morning they get up and meander into school, always late. Students are not even expected to arrive on time at one high school I sub at in here in So Cal ... Why do these older students bother to even go to school, you ask… to party they'll tell you. Here they graduate, (maybe,) at seventeen or eighteen. (Some don't care.) That's way too old, if you ask me, which no one ...
My premise is that we are not lab rats at all. My premise is that we are God individualized, but we do not know that fact. We are all avatars of one spirit. We are holding each other back. We are at least two hundred years behind where we should be. Thanks for asking.
PS one more (edit) basic inquiry: Schools will become like ghost towns: deserted, dusty, abandoned. The "bad" kids and the lost kids will congregate there with their guns in their rags and something magical will happen. They have no teachers, but they start teaching themselves and each other. They find ragged boxes of well- preserved text books and dictionaries. They learn stuff, really interesting stuff ... thank God they know how to read ... thanks to the keyboarding and texting skills they were required to use with the vast array of technological screen devices they grew up with, since they were born! And there is no blaring light with these wonderful informative books … And these kids end up saving the world.
The more interest in life and intrinsic motivation we feel and generate within ourselves, the more free (self-guided) will we have. Q. What kills interest and intrinsic motivation / free will / joy of life? A. Blind or compulsory obedience.
Might be something like lab rats, in the sense that their existence on this planet is destined to come to an end. Additionally, none of them consciously chose where they are going to be born, when and why (according to the theory). And hopefully, none of them participated during the architectural design process and the construction stage, of the cosmos itself. They're like tenants, frankly speaking.
So, all in all, the lab rat theory goes well. With reality.
Even though most of humankind is in the security-survival mode, including many in so-called developed nations, there are a few who are evolving beyond this basic mode and into a spiritual awareness. These few are realizing that there is more to this world then mere struggle and survival. They refuse to adhere to the paradigm of existing. They want to live and experience life and use their utmost potential to create a life on THEIR OWN terms. They want a better quality of living.
Also, fear is the cause of many people living in the basic security-survival mode. They are afraid of venture out and in numbers, they feel the most comfortable. People who are highly self-actualized are not afraid of being trailblazers and going alone. They want to make and leave their mark on society and culture. They KNOW who THEY are and are not afraid to go against the crowd and the mass people.
Dear G.M. Williams, I liked your post. (Also, I appreciate your old school way of writing … like mine. ) Additionally, I would like to say, I believe there are always some great souls around who can lead us (society as a whole) to undreamed of heights … there will always be more enlightened folks setting the others free. They have written books, lived political lives and have contributed to history in awesome ways. They have been seen in awareness changing movies, written soul freeing music and spoken to our hearts on stage, radio and TV. They were and are the ones in touch with themselves and not somehow bound up with heavy reigns and bits. They came here, are here now, and will come here with their own beliefs and inspiration. Through their forging, they unintentionally set the rest of us free. Some of us are earth riders. Some of us are drivers. Depends on what you fancy in life. (Personally, I like just riding, at this point. I am freeing my inward direction.)
Good morning, Princess of Darkness is here. Keeping vampire hours.........yet again. Losers are people who do not accept "defeat" and/or "failure" easily or as an integral part of life and growth. They contend that life should be as mistake and failure free as possible. They are the type of people who will find any excuse for their mistakes and failures, oftentimes blaming others, circumstances, and even God before they blame themselves.
Losers are the ones when they fail and/or are defeated, they become mired in their failures, viewing everything as lost. They even give up on their goals, rationalizing that they were not meant to succeed in the first place. They contend that only the lucky few succeed in a given situation. They may even assert that they are somehow cursed by fate, even by God. They began to view life as one constant WTF. To them, life is one big purgatorial angst at best or a neverending, abysmal, abject hell at its worst. They are on the societal periphery, always looking in, their main motto is "Coulda, woulda, shoulda". There are some among them who can become quite self-destructive because they feel that as losers, they are not worth anything! Now, I am off to bed to rest.
Now let us really get philosophically analytical here. In the United States, poverty and its resultant emotional, mental, psychological, and social ills would be drastically reduced, if not eliminated altogether, if people were mature and intelligent enough to be financially, emotionally, and psychologically prepared before electing to have children. Furthermore, if one elects to have children, have children that one can afford in order to give them the most socioeconomic, intellectual, and cultural opportunities.
Talk about whatever you want. I'll start.A couple old January 2014 website posts of mine suddenly started getting very light traffic. So I'm busily editing/updating them as we speak. Then social media blitz to...
I ask this question to all readers and myself. I ask that everyone who frequents this topic to please reply. Feel free to elaborate and converse. Thank You. Its both for me. I can't remember when I felt more passionate...
Kitty the Dreamer and her Illuminati/Reptilian hub has inspired me to bring this topic to all of you forum junkies out there. Of course I am referring to David Icke's theory of the 'Illuminati' (you know that cult that...