It seems to me that the universe itself is acausal, so it doesn't need to exist. So to make it existent or have potential it would make sense to add a self causal relation, or a conscious being, thus us. Reality dependent on consciousness which are the tools to form reality out of the actuality of the universe.

And that actuality is governed by dimension, which in turn does not need to be governed, being the nature of dimension, underlying its very form, and outcomed forms.

We lose our innocence in accepting the 'Rule Book'.
You can only claim to have regained your 'innocence' in the transcendence of those 'Rules'.

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted," - Hassan i Sabbah... the Old Man of the Mountain

("Where is 'our' Rule Boo...")

Our rule book is the ten commandments!!!

So does that mean it's ok to torture people because it's not in the ten commandments?

If people don't follow the ten commandments then yeah b/c if the bible says so then it's ok. At least thats what I've been told. And this is at church so I hink I know more about it than "does that mean it's ok to torture people".
But we should love each other no torture. God never had war or torture among his people.

Do you think there is more to this issue than what you've been told in church?

He drowned everyone on earth except for Noah's family, he burned Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground, and by kicking Adam and Eve out of the Garden he allowed humans to experience suffering.

But Adam and eve didn't obey God, so they sinned, and were wrong. God erased the sins from humans. Because God did it vengeance is ok.

What makes you think God did it out of vengeance? In parenthood you punish your child because you love him/her and want to teach a lesson. And torture is a method, whereas vengeance is an agenda that can employ many methods. So divine vengeance doesn't necessarily justify torture. Furthermore, you can't generalize from god's actions to say what's ok for all humans. God takes away life. Does that mean killing is ok? God created the universe. Does that mean it would be ok for us to create a different universe?

You didn't answer my first question!

This si complicated. I'll just ask aboutthis stuff at church. lol. Why they even critisize philosophy I don't know, because you speak like some geniuses. Bye

Hehe, we all just like to think out loud. This forum is about testing our own views and learning from others. Whatever you end up believing, you should believe because you've thought about it, not just because you were told.

I'm very suspicious of this notion that because God does something, we humans should do the same. Life and death, for example, seem better left to God - not the sort of business man should take up.

Hamlet is a great play to read when considering this sort of thing.

In some ways what God does is the presentation of original phenomenon; is there requirement for humans as individuals to develop the abilities to reason moral values for any original phenomena? Should some humans determine the values for others? The Bible says "it was good", so any follower of the Old Testament is submissive to other humans, if the Bible prohibits idolatry then how could one person submit to the moral value decided by another human? Surely this submission represents the idolization of the oppressor as the origin of the moral value...

What I was pointing out is the fact that the intelligence of human's has been used to create computer system's and other form's of system's and tool's to understand how those thing's function.

And that nature to has those tool's, so I was try to suggest that nature has intelligent design to it, since human's needed intelligence to make a tool to understand the system, wouldnt nature need intelligence to have a tool or way to understand it?

So this would be some ground's to push some form's of intelligent desgin in school's..

I was not implying the implication's of a "god" in the school teaching's, just implying the implication's of natures intelligence in the tool's that are in place to understand how the natural system function's.

It's clear that the function's of nature function intelligently with one another in a duality of harmony. Hence nature has intelligently designed it's self, yet it's still hard to know what has intelligently designed nature to intelligently design it's self. (alot of people say god)

All in all there are alot of more implication's to be covered

Man, I just want to let you know that an apostrophy only goes after a possesive. E.g. "I was the school's agenda", but not "There are many schools of thought".

As far as the content of your post; you are personifying the whole of nature, where I think that the opposite is called for. Think of physical laws as a sort of constraint for what constitutes the set of true facts as opposed to false ones. An algorithm by which those facts which are true occur as opposed to those which are false, and which defines the possible facts. The existence of man is an fact resulting of the constriction of the possibility of facts by the algorithm by which true facts are sorted from false ones.

Thinking of the universe and thus man as a mechanism operating by certain laws is, I think, much more accurate and far less unnecissarily metaphysical than the reverse.