Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

Certainty of Atheism


BenMillard

Recommended Posts

Gah, this is supposed to be a debate about disproving gods, not a book review of the Bible. tounge.gif

 

 

God is the entity which created everything.

Now, is the definition of God logically sound?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be inclined to say no, but who am I to say that? We as the human race don't know everything. We don't know exactly how we think, we don't know where Mozart is buried, et cetera.

 

On this basis, a concept of such an abstract, intangible nature as 'God', and how he/she/it supposedly created everything, we just can't conclude to be wrong. There is no such thing as tangible evidence that can accurately prove the existence/non-existence of an intangible body and what it is/was responsible for, as you can't even test/examine/measure something that is intangible, and it is thus impossible to link an intangible cause to a tangible effect in any way, and all methods of accurately proving something(e.g. the 'God' concept's incorrectness) are based on cause-effect relationships(or a solid lack of). Also, because we're certain that we don't know everything, we can't say "we know everything, and nothing proves the existence of God, so there is no God".

 

Tangible 'effects' are at best only capable of suggesting the existence/state of something intangible. I admit that the concept of 'God' stretches this, but we can't accurately prove it wrong.

 

ph34r.gif

Edited by Flash Caz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have time to read all 10 pages so if someone has already brought this up ignore me.

 

Most Christians believe that God's main attributes are that it's benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient and that it exists outside time and space. Due to these constricting factors of gods nature free will cannot exist. If it's all-knowing it knows the future, it knows what everyone is going to do. It knows what it is going to do. It cannot make choices. Thus it diddnt choose to create the universe, Eve diddnt choose to bite the apple everything is predefined since god knows what is going to happen.

 

Since god is a "perfect being" and benevolent it always has to make the good choice. No free will for god again.

 

Gods other attribute, existing outside time also throws a spanner in the works. Free will is making choices. Since god is outside time it cannot think, everything it does would get done the momemet the being came into existance.

 

If this was a game of chess, god would be in stalemate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time back, somebody remarked:

 

"For starters, I just have to say "wow" to this topic, it's pretty damn impressive. Actually a bit overwhelming- so you'll have to excuse me for not going into depth concerning any existing post in this thread. Too much to choose from, too much to say on any one of them."

 

And this was barely halfway into this discussion! I have to echo this comment, because to say everything I want to about everything that's been said would take me a very long time!

 

So I will keep it simple, which unfortunately means no mentioning of infinite universes and quantum physics.

 

I am an atheist. I was raised agnostic, checked out some of the major religions that were around me by my friends and community, and at a young age settled on atheism. The world is still beautiful, human beings are capable of amazing feats, and while I don't want to die I'm not in utter fear of it.

 

I wanted to bring to this discussion a website featuring talks by Bob Avakian, an atheist and revolutionary, looking at the role of religion in the world, why people take it up (because there is a real need people feel for their religion which is not easily dismissed), and how to understand the world. In the course of this he makes some really hysterical points as well about how obscene religion can get. I'm afraid trying to discuss them any farther would render them less profound, so here it is: http://bobavakian.net/

 

Enjoy (those of you who are atheist)

Red Hat Girl

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to bring to this discussion a website featuring talks by Bob Avakian, an atheist and revolutionary, looking at the role of religion in the world, why people take it up (because there is a real need people feel for their religion which is not easily dismissed), and how to understand the world.  In the course of this he makes some really hysterical points as well about how obscene religion can get.  I'm afraid trying to discuss them any farther would render them less profound, so here it is: http://bobavakian.net/

 

Enjoy (those of you who are atheist)

Red Hat Girl

Did you know Stalin was an athiest? But I find it some what ironic when Moscow came under seige he allowed freedom of religion...and even prayed himself while awaiting his train out of the city. I wonder if Bobby would do the same...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lazzo Posted on Jan 10 2005, 04:03

 

Did you know Stalin was an athiest?

 

no way, the leader of the communist party an athiest thats amazing

 

who would of guessed

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazzo Posted on Jan 10 2005, 04:03

 

Did you know Stalin was an athiest?

 

no way, the leader of the communist party an athiest thats amazing

 

who would of guessed

Wow. I think you missed the apparent reason for the post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gah, this is supposed to be a debate about disproving gods, not a book review of the Bible. tounge.gif 

 

 

God is the entity which created everything.

Now, is the definition of God logically sound?

I'd be inclined to say no, but who am I to say that? We as the human race don't know everything. We don't know exactly how we think, we don't know where Mozart is buried, et cetera.

 

On this basis, a concept of such an abstract, intangible nature as 'God', and how he/she/it supposedly created everything, we just can't conclude to be wrong. There is no such thing as tangible evidence that can accurately prove the existence/non-existence of an intangible body and what it is/was responsible for, as you can't even test/examine/measure something that is intangible, and it is thus impossible to link an intangible cause to a tangible effect in any way, and all methods of accurately proving something(e.g. the 'God' concept's incorrectness) are based on cause-effect relationships(or a solid lack of). Also, because we're certain that we don't know everything, we can't say "we know everything, and nothing proves the existence of God, so there is no God".

 

Tangible 'effects' are at best only capable of suggesting the existence/state of something intangible. I admit that the concept of 'God' stretches this, but we can't accurately prove it wrong.

 

ph34r.gif

Nothing can be intagible. Your concept of god is just a specific arrangements of neurons on your head firing in a specific sequence and whose synapsis are being altereded by a specific blend of chemicals. My concept will be fractionally different to yours. There is nothing intangible about that. Furthermore, it gives tangible proof that one can think about gods without them actually existing. By the same merit, one can think about jumping off a bridge without actually jumping off a bridge. The idea of jumping of a bridge is just another arrangement, as are all other ideas.

 

Ideas of any sort are not intangible, they are very much physical. Therefore your whole argument about protecting gods because they are "intangible" cannot be true as all things have physical presence, else they have no presence whatsoever.

 

Also, why did you think the definition was illogical? How could a creator-god create everything without creating everything? This definition must be tested to destruction!

 

 

(EDIT) RHG, the site you linked you only seems to have huge audio files. These cannot be quoted from and used in text-based discussions like we have on forums. How about you take part in the conversation using your own views about this definition? smile.gif

Edited by Cerbera
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ideas of any sort are not intangible, they are very much physical.  Therefore your whole argument about protecting gods because they are "intangible" cannot be true as all things have physical presence, else they have no presence whatsoever.

 

 

Also, why did you think the definition was illogical?  How could a creator-god create everything without creating everything?  This definition must be tested to destruction!

After seeing this my head exploded...not out of confuzion but because somebody siad something that actually mad a great deal of sense.

 

 

My argument is:

If everything has a source or a way of creation (example: SEX[MAN+WOMAN]=BABY) who created God? I know is is an unanswerable question, but think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If everything has a source or a way of creation (example: SEX[MAN+WOMAN]=BABY) who created God? I know is is an unanswerable question, but think about it.

I'm just saying a viewpoint, not arguing with you though. People believe there was no creator for God. God was just there. I can see how this is rejected by many peopel though. We're finite, and everything in our life is. So thinking of something that has always been...that's hard for us to do. Hell, it's hard for me to do even. My head starts to hurt.

 

But I'm notarguing...I'm just saying a belief stand point.

 

smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I don't believe in God. All I argue is that we can't prove the inexistence of God.

 

 

Nothing can be intagible.

 

"Definition

intangible [show phonetics]

adjective

An intangible feeling or quality exists but you cannot describe it exactly or prove it:

She has that intangible quality which you might call charisma."

 

Dictionaries themselves give examples of intangibles(and don't even think about contradicting a Cambridge definition).

 

It even mentions what I mentioned; intangibles can't be proven to exist(nor disproved, logically).

 

 

Your concept of god is just a specific arrangements of neurons on your head firing in a specific sequence and whose synapsis are being altereded by a specific blend of chemicals. My concept will be fractionally different to yours.  There is nothing intangible about that.

You're moving out of context. We're not talking about the tangibility of thought processes related to God, we're talking about the tangibility of God itself.

 

 

Furthermore, it gives tangible proof that one can think about gods without them actually existing. 

Sure, people can believe in non-existent Gods, but does this mean that Christians do believe in a non-existent God(or any other religion believes in a non-existent God)?

 

 

By the same merit, one can think about jumping off a bridge without actually jumping off a bridge.  The idea of jumping of a bridge is just another arrangement, as are all other ideas.

 

See above.

 

 

Ideas of any sort are not intangible, they are very much physical. Therefore your whole argument about protecting gods because they are "intangible" cannot be true as all things have physical presence, else they have no presence whatsoever.

See above, again.

 

 

Also, why did you think the definition was illogical? How could a creator-god create everything without creating everything? This definition must be tested to destruction!

It may seem illogical, but if you have any idea of how science works, God's non-existence can't be proven based on this kind of comment. My own personal theory is that the idea of 'God' is bullsh*t, based on such concepts as your's, but there's no way of scientificly proving this, and so we're not in the position to validly prove the non-existence of God.

 

The only thing I am contradicting is how you talk of 'certainty'.

 

 

My argument is:

If everything has a source or a way of creation (example: SEX[MAN+WOMAN]=BABY) who created God? I know is is an unanswerable question, but think about it.

 

Exactly, it’s unanswerable, that’s why:

1. I don’t believe in God.

2. The existence of God can't be disproven.

 

ph34r.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First of all, I don't believe in God. All I argue is that we can't prove the inexistence of God.

 

 

Nothing can be intagible.
"Definition

intangible [show phonetics]

adjective

An intangible feeling or quality exists but you cannot describe it exactly or prove it:

She has that intangible quality which you might call charisma."

 

Dictionaries themselves give examples of intangibles(and don't even think about contradicting a Cambridge definition).

 

It even mentions what I mentioned; intangibles can't be proven to exist (nor disproved, logically).

 

 

Your concept of god is just a specific arrangements of neurons on your head firing in a specific sequence and whose synapsis are being altereded by a specific blend of chemicals. My concept will be fractionally different to yours.  There is nothing intangible about that.
You're moving out of context. We're not talking about the tangibility of thought processes related to God, we're talking about the tangibility of God itself.

 

 

Furthermore, it gives tangible proof that one can think about gods without them actually existing. 
Sure, people can believe in non-existent Gods, but does this mean that Christians do believe in a non-existent God(or any other religion believes in a non-existent God)?

 

 

By the same merit, one can think about jumping off a bridge without actually jumping off a bridge.  The idea of jumping of a bridge is just another arrangement, as are all other ideas.
See above.

 

 

Ideas of any sort are not intangible, they are very much physical. Therefore your whole argument about protecting gods because they are "intangible" cannot be true as all things have physical presence, else they have no presence whatsoever.
See above, again.That definition is not using technically correct language and quite why a Cambridge definition cannot be questioned is unintelligable. They are just people and their new definitions are different to their old ones, so even they realise their definitions require alteration. Furthermore, the dictionary is written for normal folks engaged in normal conversations, not philisophy enthusiasts engaged in a deeply technical conversation.

 

Something which is intangible cannot be said to "exist" because it would have no tangible property with which to manifest itself in the universe. This is why I was explaining about how intangible things can be thought about as thought is tangible, but that they things themselves could never exist. I was establishing the fact that thinking about something does not create it, countering the Ontological argument which was starting to emerge.

 

You are right that it does not immediately follow that thinking about what is considered intangible is actually intangible because the thinker might be mistaken. In this case the object turns out to be tangible and that it therefore exists. The vice-versa is true, in that a tangible object must exist, else it must be intangible. However, the argument was that God cannot be questioned because it is intangible. Thus: If God is intangible then it cannot exist.

 

 

 

Also, why did you think the definition was illogical? How could a creator-god create everything without creating everything? This definition must be tested to destruction!
It may seem illogical, but if you have any idea of how science works, God's non-existence can't be proven based on this kind of comment. My own personal theory is that the idea of 'God' is bullsh*t, based on such concepts as your's, but there's no way of scientificly proving this, and so we're not in the position to validly prove the non-existence of God.

 

The only thing I am contradicting is how you talk of 'certainty'.

 

 

My argument is:

If everything has a source or a way of creation (example: SEX[MAN+WOMAN]=BABY) who created God? I know is is an unanswerable question, but think about it.

 

Exactly, it’s unanswerable, that’s why:

1. I don’t believe in God.

2. The existence of God can't be disproven.

 

ph34r.gif

You admonish me for suggesting something as being certain, yet close your own post with an adament claim that your own suggestion is for certain. This is contradictory and even hypocritical. My use of certainty is as used in philosophy and science: To describe a high level of reliability, coherence and rigourously evaluated evidence. We basically agree, all that is left is for you to consider what you already know more thoroughly and test it with others so you can become more confident in it.

 

 

BTW, Please add the full author date in your quotes if you are going to split them up. It was only because I wrote some of those samples that I realised any were by me. Incidentally, when you reply to something which applies to a load of other things which come just after it, you should just quote everything your reply applies to in one go. That way you don't have quoted passages with "See above" below them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All quotes in this post contain statements made by Cerbera in his last post in this topic.

 

 

That definition is not using technically correct language and quite why a Cambridge definition cannot be questioned is unintelligable. They are just people and their new definitions are different to their old ones, so even they realise their definitions require alteration. Furthermore, the dictionary is written for normal folks engaged in normal conversations, not philisophy enthusiasts engaged in a deeply technical conversation.

 

What I'm saying is that it's a credible(and universal) definition, and that its educated creators/critics would have some speckle of an idea if the definition was completely illogical(it's not a matter of it being a general definition not suited to specifics, it's a matter of the definition saying exactly the opposite of what you are saying i.e. it's saying that something intangible 'exists').

 

 

Something which is intangible cannot be said to "exist" because it would have no tangible property with which to manifest itself in the universe. This is why I was explaining about how intangible things can be thought about as thought is tangible, but that they things themselves could never exist. I was establishing the fact that thinking about something does not create it, countering the Ontological argument which was starting to emerge.

 

You are right that it does not immediately follow that thinking about what is considered intangible is actually intangible because the thinker might be mistaken. In this case the object turns out to be tangible and that it therefore exists. The vice-versa is true, in that a tangible object must exist, else it must be intangible. However, the argument was that God cannot be questioned because it is intangible. Thus: If God is intangible then it cannot exist

 

Who's to say that our methods of determining existence are complete? There may be signs untrackable to humans that express the existence of something. We have much to learn about the universe.

 

 

You admonish me for suggesting something as being certain, yet close your own post with an adament claim that your own suggestion is for certain. This is contradictory and even hypocritical.

I never said that it was 'certain', I was merely stating a theoretical point(in a sloppy manner).

 

 

 

My use of certainty is as used in philosophy and science: To describe a high level of reliability, coherence and rigourously evaluated evidence. We basically agree, all that is left is for you to consider what you already know more thoroughly and test it with others so you can become more confident in it.

Your theory is far from 'certain'. All that your theory is based on is the theory itself. When this is the case, no matter how logical/illogical a theory is, it will only be called a theory, not 'certainty', as there is no convincing evidence involved. Hell, Darwin's theory is perfectly logical(to pretty much everyone), but little conclusive evidence(to date) supports it(because of the context of the theory), so people only consider it a theory(not certainty).

 

Until you gain some convincing evidence for your theory, it will not be considered certainty.

 

ph34r.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All quotes in this post contain statements made by Cerbera in his last post in this topic.

 

 

That definition is not using technically correct language and quite why a Cambridge definition cannot be questioned is unintelligable. They are just people and their new definitions are different to their old ones, so even they realise their definitions require alteration. Furthermore, the dictionary is written for normal folks engaged in normal conversations, not philisophy enthusiasts engaged in a deeply technical conversation.
What I'm saying is that it's a credible(and universal) definition, and that its educated creators/critics would have some speckle of an idea if the definition was completely illogical(it's not a matter of it being a general definition not suited to specifics, it's a matter of the definition saying exactly the opposite of what you are saying i.e. it's saying that something intangible 'exists').If everything were defined in complete terms, including all technical uses, the definition of each word would be volumous. Dictionaries only use a passage or even a single sentance to describe the meaning of a word. This limits the accuracy of their definitions to only the casual uses of the word, rather than the rigourous ones required by philosophy. The learned people at Cambridge would no doubt accept this, just as they would accept their definitions of terms like "strain" do not do full justice to how that word is used in Physics.

 

They are using a very casual form of existance to keep the definition short. They do not make any reference to the use of intangability in reference to gods, or any specific entity. To that extent their definition is insufficient for our discussion. If something is intangible, it is impossible for anything of any sort to interact with it. Such an object cannot exist because it would be impossible for it to interact with the universe as the various known and any unknown dimensions would automatically interact with this object if it were present. Therefore the object cannot be present as its specified physical properties are impossible to achieve.

 

 

Something which is intangible cannot be said to "exist" because it would have no tangible property with which to manifest itself in the universe. This is why I was explaining about how intangible things can be thought about as thought is tangible, but that they things themselves could never exist. I was establishing the fact that thinking about something does not create it, countering the Ontological argument which was starting to emerge.

 

You are right that it does not immediately follow that thinking about what is considered intangible is actually intangible because the thinker might be mistaken. In this case the object turns out to be tangible and that it therefore exists. The vice-versa is true, in that a tangible object must exist, else it must be intangible. However, the argument was that God cannot be questioned because it is intangible. Thus: If God is intangible then it cannot exist

 

Who's to say that our methods of determining existence are complete? There may be signs untrackable to humans that express the existence of something. We have much to learn about the universe.This is logic. One does need to constantly test the existance of all things to rely upon them being there. I placed a drink by my computer but I do not have to continuously monitor it to ensure it is still there. I don't understand what relevance this has to determing the existance of God anyway - as an intangible being it cannot exist anyway.

 

 

You admonish me for suggesting something as being certain, yet close your own post with an adament claim that your own suggestion is for certain. This is contradictory and even hypocritical.
I never said that it was 'certain', I was merely stating a theoretical point(in a sloppy manner).You gave a firmly worded list at the end of your post about The Way Things Are. This is beside the point though, as you should now understand why intangible objects are impossible.

 

 

 

My use of certainty is as used in philosophy and science: To describe a high level of reliability, coherence and rigourously evaluated evidence. We basically agree, all that is left is for you to consider what you already know more thoroughly and test it with others so you can become more confident in it.
Your theory is far from 'certain'. All that your theory is based on is the theory itself. When this is the case, no matter how logical/illogical a theory is, it will only be called a theory, not 'certainty', as there is no convincing evidence involved. Hell, Darwin's theory is perfectly logical(to pretty much everyone), but little conclusive evidence(to date) supports it(because of the context of the theory), so people only consider it a theory(not certainty).

 

Until you gain some convincing evidence for your theory, it will not be considered certainty.

My "theory" is the application of philosophy. It is not a theory, it is an explanation of truths already part of philosophy. Furthermore, since I think my logic turned out a bit more...well, logical this time you should be able to follow the reasoning a little easier about why these conclusions are correct. If you or anyone else can provide an explanation of how something which cannot interact with anything can exist within any part of the universe, I would like to know about it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should know by now that my posts concern your statements.

 

 

If everything were defined in complete terms, including all technical uses, the definition of each word would be volumous. Dictionaries only use a passage or even a single sentance to describe the meaning of a word. This limits the accuracy of their definitions to only the casual uses of the word, rather than the rigourous ones required by philosophy. The learned people at Cambridge would no doubt accept this, just as they would accept their definitions of terms like "strain" do not do full justice to how that word is used in Physics.

 

They are using a very casual form of existance to keep the definition short. They do not make any reference to the use of intangability in reference to gods, or any specific entity. To that extent their definition is insufficient for our discussion. If something is intangible, it is impossible for anything of any sort to interact with it. Such an object cannot exist because it would be impossible for it to interact with the universe as the various known and any unknown dimensions would automatically interact with this object if it were present. Therefore the object cannot be present as its specified physical properties are impossible to achieve.

 

Cerbera: "Something which is intangible cannot be said to "exist""

 

Dictionary: "An intangible feeling or quality exists "

 

The statements contradict each other.

 

Present me with 'another' case of a general definition of a word contradicting a more in-depth definition of that same word.

 

 

This is logic. One does need to constantly test the existance of all things to rely upon them being there. I placed a drink by my computer but I do not have to continuously monitor it to ensure it is still there. I don't understand what relevance this has to determing the existance of God anyway - as an intangible being it cannot exist anyway.

 

You gave a firmly worded list at the end of your post about The Way Things Are. This is beside the point though, as you should now understand why intangible objects are impossible.

 

So only things which can be detected by human senses/inventions can exist? How exactly do you know this?...

 

 

My "theory" is the application of philosophy. It is not a theory, it is an explanation of truths already part of philosophy. Furthermore, since I think my logic turned out a bit more...well, logical this time you should be able to follow the reasoning a little easier about why these conclusions are correct. If you or anyone else can provide an explanation of how something which cannot interact with anything can exist within any part of the universe, I would like to know about it.

Truths? You're relying on what is scientificly known now whilst ignoring what could be discovered in the future, and my above point explains the limitations of that. There is nothing(to our knowledge) supporting that Darwin's theory is invalid. How can your theory be more valid that such theories?

 

ph34r.gif

Edited by Flash Caz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am only going to say this as I am Atheist myself.

 

Maybe if there is something of like a universal power, maybe it's not a person. It could be like a force or certain of energy, not necessarily a human being-type creature. I don't believe in a higher power, but this makes more sense as oppose to a human being a universal power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you should know by now that my posts concern your statements.

 

 

If everything were defined in complete terms, including all technical uses, the definition of each word would be volumous. Dictionaries only use a passage or even a single sentance to describe the meaning of a word. This limits the accuracy of their definitions to only the casual uses of the word, rather than the rigourous ones required by philosophy. The learned people at Cambridge would no doubt accept this, just as they would accept their definitions of terms like "strain" do not do full justice to how that word is used in Physics.

 

They are using a very casual form of existance to keep the definition short. They do not make any reference to the use of intangability in reference to gods, or any specific entity. To that extent their definition is insufficient for our discussion. If something is intangible, it is impossible for anything of any sort to interact with it. Such an object cannot exist because it would be impossible for it to interact with the universe as the various known and any unknown dimensions would automatically interact with this object if it were present. Therefore the object cannot be present as its specified physical properties are impossible to achieve.

Cerbera: "Something which is intangible cannot be said to "exist""

 

Dictionary: "An intangible feeling or quality exists "

 

The statements contradict each other.

 

Present me with 'another' case of a general definition of a word contradicting a more in-depth definition of that same word.

Other instances of the narrow scope of dictionary definitions are not required. Notice that I use "exists" to stress it is being used in a specific context. The dictionary definition does not, showing that it is being used in a general context. I actually supplied you an example of another definition like this anyway...which you quoted when replying to me. Haven't you been paying attention to what you type?

 

 

This is logic. One does need to constantly test the existance of all things to rely upon them being there. I placed a drink by my computer but I do not have to continuously monitor it to ensure it is still there. I don't understand what relevance this has to determing the existance of God anyway - as an intangible being it cannot exist anyway.

 

You gave a firmly worded list at the end of your post about The Way Things Are. This is beside the point though, as you should now understand why intangible objects are impossible.

 

So only things which can be detected by human senses/inventions can exist? How exactly do you know this?...Huh? Where the hell did anyone suggest that?! I was very clear in stating that for something to be perfectly intangible (which is what God would have to be in order to remain perfect) it could be be possible for anything to have any interaction with it whatsoever. I even proved this with the example that dimensions, the concept of space itself, would always interact with anything within it. Thus something which did not interact with these would be impossible. I was very deliberate in not requiring humans in any way.

 

 

My "theory" is the application of philosophy. It is not a theory, it is an explanation of truths already part of philosophy. Furthermore, since I think my logic turned out a bit more...well, logical this time you should be able to follow the reasoning a little easier about why these conclusions are correct. If you or anyone else can provide an explanation of how something which cannot interact with anything can exist within any part of the universe, I would like to know about it.
Truths? You're relying on what is scientificly known now whilst ignoring what could be discovered in the future, and my above point explains the limitations of that. There is nothing(to our knowledge) supporting that Darwin's theory is invalid. How can your theory be more valid that such theories?

 

ph34r.gif

What makes you think the truths I referred to were scientific? I never even mentioned Darwin! Where the f*ck did you get the idea that I was trying to show his theories were wrong?!! catspider.gif

 

(EDIT) I'm sorry that this post is so blunt. You are referring to stuff I never even mentioned, saying I said it and that it was wrong for me to do so. You ignored important things I had written, too. I am not angry with you, nor do I want to cause you offense, but I find it rather careless to post something so false.

 

(EDIT2) I could try a different approach to proving that an intangible god is impossible. If we are using an omnipresent type of god, it must be able to exist everywhere and therefore it immediatly interacts with the dimensions in order to occupy them. To be omnipotent the god must have the capacity to make changes to that which it occupies; it must be able to interact with them. If it were intangible it would be incapable of doing this. Therefore such an entity could not exist due to the mutual exclusivity of its "omnipotent" and "intangible" properties.

Edited by Cerbera
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Other instances of the narrow scope of dictionary definitions are not required. Notice that I use "exists" to stress it is being used in a specific context. The dictionary definition does not, showing that it is being used in a general context.

The definition would account for this in a logical manner if the case was so i.e. not be a retarded definition. It's not like it would take 500 more lines to write 'except for in this bullshit sense that this guy called Cerbera says of', and for the amount it would add to the quality of the definition i.e. making it logical, I seem to think that they'd do such a thing.

 

Surely if one was to generalise a definition, one would at least ensure that none of the points made in the detailed definition were contradicted. That, my friend, is logic, not a matter of making something general.

 

 

I actually supplied you an example of another definition like this anyway...which you quoted when replying to me. Haven't you been paying attention to what you type?

 

I ignored it because it proved nothing. Since when does the general definition of 'strain' completely contradict the more detailed definition of that word?

 

 

Huh? Where the hell did anyone suggest that?! I was very clear in stating that for something to be perfectly intangible (which is what God would have to be in order to remain perfect) it could be be possible for anything to have any interaction with it whatsoever. I even proved this with the example that dimensions, the concept of space itself, would always interact with anything within it. Thus something which did not interact with these would be impossible. I was very deliberate in not requiring humans in any way.

You're talking in a way that contradicts the definition of 'intangible'. You're living in a dream World.

 

 

What makes you think the truths I referred to were scientific? I never even mentioned Darwin! Where the f*ck did you get the idea that I was trying to show his theories were wrong?!!

 

(EDIT) I'm sorry that this post is so blunt. You are referring to stuff I never even mentioned, saying I said it and that it was wrong for me to do so. You ignored important things I had written, too. I am not angry with you, nor do I want to cause you offense, but I find it rather careless to post something so false.

Since when did I say that you were trying to prove him wrong?

 

You talked as if there was something that suggested that Darwin's theory was incorrect. In response to my point related to his theory, you said:

 

If you or anyone else can provide an explanation of how something which cannot interact with anything can exist within any part of the universe, I would like to know about it.

 

There is nothing that logically suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect, just as you claim to be the case with your theory. Your theory can't be called certainty based on this alone.

 

So what exactly are your truths? They can't be truths based on logic alone. Evidence is needed for 'certainty'.

 

 

I could try a different approach to proving that an intangible god is impossible. If we are using an omnipresent type of god, it must be able to exist everywhere and therefore it immediatly interacts with the dimensions in order to occupy them. To be omnipotent the god must have the capacity to make changes to that which it occupies; it must be able to interact with them. If it were intangible it would be incapable of doing this. Therefore such an entity could not exist due to the mutual exclusivity of its "omnipotent" and "intangible" properties.

Yeah, except that you are misusing the term 'intangible'.

 

ph34r.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote Warmaster129

My beef is with those who believe that the entire human race came from 2 people around 6000 years ago and that every species went through a population of 2 bottleneck during a global flood only to populate all of the world and start numerous civilizations within the next 100 years, and that every peice of evidence to the contrary (dino bones, etc.) is a "test of faith

 

The world was made long before people were put on it (dino bones, etc.).

And if the human race did not start 6000 years ago, just when do you say it started? notify.gif

 

QUOTE Even s

Anyone who exists in dimensions outside our own, could be percieved as a god, a la my first point

Quote Mortukai

In theory, I guess so, except that no such dimensions exist.

If there are more than our 4 dimensions (which I doubt), then they are nothing like anything we understand, and therefore it is unlikely that they could contain anything that we could understand (like an invisible man)

 

So if No-one can properly "grasp" these dimensions. Not even the smartest people in the world, how can you understand the power that is created them? you can't. But keep trying.

 

Quote Even s again

humans want to be led

If you put a group of humans in a perilous situation, they will always select a leader.

 

I am human and i don't wan't to be led, and I think if if put a group of humans in a perilous situation, they will look to the strongest ones to led them, not just because they want to be led.

 

Quote Mortukai

If you ever want to know why America is the most violent and militaristic nation on the planet (yes, it is), read the bible and consider that 83% of Americans believe it to be divine law.

 

Allways trying to blame the God that you say don't exsist for every thing that is wrong with humans.

Amarica is not the way it is because of "divine law". it ts the way it is because crazy people from all over the world (Australia, France, Germany, Mexico, Asia, Africa, Iran) all go there so they can be free to be crazy. simple as that.

 

Quote Mortukai again

The only rule anyone needs is: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and this was put forward 500 years before Jesus was born by Confucious. Not only does this rule not require a God, it works best without one, because if there is a God, then your morality is based on supernaturla punishment and reward, not on your own volition to be nice for the good of others.

 

Christianity is not based on supernaturla punishment and reward. there is no punishmen, true believers do good because they want to.

 

Quote Thejkwhosaysni

Most Christians believe that God's main attributes are that it's benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient and that it exists outside time and space. Due to these constricting factors of gods nature free will cannot exist. If it's all-knowing it knows the future, it knows what everyone is going to do. It knows what it is going to do. It cannot make choices. Thus it diddnt choose to create the universe, Eve diddnt choose to bite the apple everything is predefined since god knows what is going to happen.

Since god is a "perfect being" and benevolent it always has to make the good choice. No free will for god again.

 

what you just posted is an exsample of free will. no one forced you to say that.

when you have kids you will see how easy it is to see the future of what they will do. even what they will say.

life is one choice after another, and the way your life ends up will mostly depend on the choices you make.

you can't blame God.

being perfect is allways making the right choices. just someting we can't do and God can.

 

Quote Thejkwhosaysni

Gods other attribute, existing outside time also throws a spanner in the works. Free will is making choices. Since god is outside time it cannot think, everything it does would get done the momemet the being came into existance.

 

I would like to see you prove that one.

 

Qoute Flash caz

Who's to say that our methods of determining existence are complete? There may be signs untrackable to humans that express the existence of something. We have much to learn about the universe.

 

I think you are so right.

 

Quote Flash caz

Until you gain some convincing evidence for your theory, it will not be considered certainty.

 

Flash caz, you took the words right out of my mouth.

 

Quote Cerbera

I could try a different approach to proving that an intangible god is impossible. If we are using an omnipresent type of god, it must be able to exist everywhere and therefore it immediatly interacts with the dimensions in order to occupy them. To be omnipotent the god must have the capacity to make changes to that which it occupies; it must be able to interact with them. If it were intangible it would be incapable of doing this. Therefore such an entity could not exist due to the mutual exclusivity of its "omnipotent" and "intangible" properties.

 

Do you think it is posible for Gods exsitance and power to be tangible but his perfect personality be intangible? wow.gif

Edited by ctel
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it ts the way it is because crazy people from all over the world (Australia, France, Germany, Mexico, Asia, Africa, Iran) all go there so they can be free to go crazy

 

first of all saying that immigration is responsible for the current state of the usa is just avoiding the fact that americans messed up their own country. If it wasnt for americans the world wouldnt have to immigate to the US! look... my philosophy can be summarized in a few words... Europe good, America bad. hehe.... just kidding...

 

Most americans are descendants of recent immigrants.

 

dont blame it on mexico... I really dont like guys like pat buchanan or something that say that mexicans cant turn into americans because they have big families... WTF! I find it is useful to blame it on quality of education, and history, and economic status...

 

Quote Mortukai

If you ever want to know why America is the most violent and militaristic nation on the planet (yes, it is), read the bible and consider that 83% of Americans believe it to be divine law.

 

uhhh.... Im not sure that you can blame it on fundamentalism, as classical fundamentalism is rather peaceful. I doubt that America is the most violent country on the planet, also I doubt that it is the most "militaristic" unless that has something to do with the government's military-the us has military bases everywhere so i guess i can agree with that... A number of "developing countries" are more violent than the US.

 

And if the human race did not start 6000 years ago, just when do you say it started?

 

I suppose he meant before 6000 years ago... i doubt he has the exact date...

 

Christianity is not based on supernaturla punishment and reward. there is no punishmen, true believers do good because they want to.

 

or because they dont want to go to heaven... main thing though is that you have you believe in Jesus aparently... and repent from your sins and all that stuff...

 

ever thought of opening up a club called "TRUE BELIEVERS" and have yourself as the one and only member? jking...

 

Allways trying to blame the God that you say don't exsist for every thing that is wrong with humans.

 

 

that isnt what he is saying, he was saying that religion is the problem, not god.

 

The only rule anyone needs is: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and this was put forward 500 years before Jesus was born by Confucious.

 

is that really the truth? that the only one anyone "needs"? what exactly do we need it for? to define right and wrong? God serves as a guarantee that it is the right one. That you should do right even if you you would win from not doing what you should.

 

Anyone who exists in dimensions outside our own, could be percieved as a god, a la my first point

 

like the creatures from tramfalmadore?

 

God was just there

 

If God could just be there then why does the universe have to have a beginning? couldnt it just start? bigetty bang! makes about the same amount of sense with the added advantage of not telling you to kill homosexuals... bbq.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this thread is really deteriorating. People are getting really confused, misunderstanding comments and concepts, misrepresenting them in order to attack them, attacking the weakest points and expecting that this somehow affects the strongest, etc. Not pretty sight. Let's take a step back and refocus.

 

 

in·tan·gi·ble Pronunciation Key (n-tnj-bl)

adj.

  1. Incapable of being perceived by the senses.

  2. Incapable of being realized or defined.

  3. Incorporeal.

 

n.

  1. Something intangible, especially an asset that cannot be perceived by the senses. Often used in the plural: intangibles such as goodwill and dedication.

  2. Law. Incorporeal property such as bank deposits, stocks, bonds, and promissory notes. Often used in the plural: a state tax on intangibles.

 

Now, quite regardless of any of the contexts where "intangible" applies, it doesn't take much effort to realise that when it comes right down to it, everything that can be said to be intangible is actually manifested physically. The problem is that, at it's core, our understanding of "intangible" is based almost entirely on if we can touch, see, smell, hear, or taste it. Problem is, we have other senses that are not these five. And no, for all you mumbo jumbo magicians and voodoo priests out there, I'm not talking about some mystical "sixth sense" or "third eye", I'm talking about our brain's ability to percieve itself and our body. When you feel hungry, is that touch? When you feel afraid, is that smell? When you think, is that sight? But certainly we can percieve all of these things happening. This is because our "official" senses are all about interacting with the external world, but we also must interact with our "internal" body, in order to monitor and react to it. When you feel the "intangible" quality of dedication, that is actually purely physical, in that your brain is aware of it's own determination to follow through with a plan. But from conception of the plan, to dismissal of alternative plans, to enacting your body to do everything necessary for this plan to come into fruition, every step of this "intangible" dedication is physical, in the electro-chemical action potentials of your brain's central nervous system and your body's peripheral nervous system. We know this because there are actually cases of people with damage to specific parts of their brain, who never ever make any plans to do anything, and without being forced to do things, they will happily sit in a chair 'till they die of thirst. They could tell you that they are very thirsty, they could tell you that they really want a drink, but for the life of them (literally), they cannot produce the plan to get a drink. Now, that's just one example of how something which most people would think is "intangible" is actually purely physical, but the reason people think it is "intangible" is because they can't sense it with their 5 "official" senses.

 

Further examples which are much easier to understand are things like stock and bonds, which I'm sure you all know actually do exist in terms of both paper/electronic data and shared mental concepts attributing agreed worth to them. Thing is, there is nothing in the world which we can plausibly say actually exists that is "intangible" in the common understanding of the word (ie: the understanding that it cannot be interacted with on any level, where a more accurate understanding would be that it cannot be percieved by our 5 external senses).

 

What does this mean? It means that Cerbera and Flash Caz have been arguing over nothing but confusion. God certainly can be intangible, if we understand that this means that he cannot be percieved by our external senses. Nothing can be "truly" intangible if we understand that this means it has no physical presence at all. This still requires that any God must be able to be detected somehow, even if not with our 5 external senses. Perhaps with magnetism or slight gravity fluctuations or non-visible light or neutrino emission or tachyons or whatever. There are many things in the universe beyond our ability to directly perceive which we have nonetheless managed to predict, detect, manipulate, and understand.

 

So now, we have logic and evidence showing how the common misconception of "intangible" is false, and that even when something seems intangible, it actually is physically manifest. The burden of proof now lies with anyone else to provide evidence for how and intangible God can be completely outside the physical realm, and yet still able to interact with be perceived by the physical realm. I'll remind you that God must be able to be perceived, else no-one would ever be able to know what he is in order to worship him. Unless, of course, they simply made him up...

 

 

And if the human race did not start 6000 years ago, just when do you say it started?

Well, seeing as how you clearly have no understanding of evolution, it won't do much good to say that the human race never started, but instead evolved slowly from our ancestors, so instead I'll say that we developed the first signs of language around 50 million years ago, opposable thumbs around 100 million years ago, and we started resembling our modern selves about 80 million years ago. Interestingly, if it wasn't for our opposable thumbs, we would have lost to the neanderthals, who had larger and more complex brains than we did at the time, but who lacked the ability to create and use tools and weapons. Thank god for survival inspired genocide, eh?

 

 

So if No-one can properly "grasp" these dimensions. Not even the smartest people in the world, how can you understand the power that is created them? you can't. But keep trying.

hahaha. That's pretty funny. So first you assume that some power must have created these dimensions (which don't exist), and that given that the dimensions themselves are incomprehensible (due to our development and evolution outside of them, meaning we never developed a way to perceive that which we cannot interact with), that this creator power must therefore be even more incomprehensible.... but somehow you can understand it. Are you claiming to be smarter than the smartest people in the world? Bear in mind that nearly all of these smartest people in the world do not believe in any God (a common trend in any controversial study of intelligence and religion, is an inverse curvi-linear relationship between intelligence and religious beliefs).

 

These dimensions cannot be grasped because our brains are not built in such a way that would allow us to grasp them. These dimensions also do not exist. These dimensions must therefore not have been created, by a power or not. Such a power must therefore be entirely useless and redundant, or not exist at all.

 

 

I am human and i don't wan't to be led, and I think if if put a group of humans in a perilous situation, they will look to the strongest ones to led them, not just because they want to be led.

Are you sh*tting me? You want to be led by the greatest and strongest leader ever: God! How can you seriously claim to not want to be led, but then follow the bible like a sheep? Thing is, you are, if anything, more susceptible to the desire to be led than many other people.

 

 

Allways trying to blame the God that you say don't exsist for every thing that is wrong with humans.

Amarica is not the way it is because of "divine law". it ts the way it is because crazy people from all over the world (Australia, France, Germany, Mexico, Asia, Africa, Iran) all go there so they can be free to be crazy. simple as that.

How could I blame something which does not exist? I don't. I blame the people who created him. People are what is wrong with people. People would be alot nicer and happier if it wasn't for people.

 

Also, you truly are delusional if you think people from Australia and Europe flock to your country for freedom. Not only do these countries generally despise America and most Americans, but we also have the same, if not more, freedom than you. Did you know that in Germany everyone, in any profession, is entitled to 3 weeks paid holiday every year? Or that in Spain everyone is entitled to an hour-long siesta after their lunch break? Or that we actually have the right to privacy?

 

America is the way it is because of the people in it. Most of the people in it believe in the Christian God. Do the math. For f*ck's sake man, you actually have people trying to ban evolution from being taught in schools. Do you have any concept of how backwards the rest of the world perceives America to be?

 

 

Christianity is not based on supernaturla punishment and reward. there is no punishmen, true believers do good because they want to.

Bullsh*t. Who are you trying to fool? In order to become a "true believer", you must accept eternal and completely unjust punishment awaits non-believers, and that eternal reward and love awaits "true believers". True believers don't do good because they want to, if they do any good at all (the jury's out on that one), they do it out of fear of no longer being a true believer or being shunned from their religious peers.

 

 

what you just posted is an exsample of free will. no one forced you to say that.

Tsk, tsk. Ctel, I thought we'd already gone over how the bible tells us very clearly that no man has free will? Is your memory that selective? Not only the bible, but also science, which we've covered before with the Libet experiments, shows us that no-one has free will, because their brain decides what they will be doing long before they are ever aware of any decisions to do it.

 

But regardless, defining free will as "nobody forcing you to do something" is not really very thorough or smart. What about if your brain forces you to do it and you just think you "want" to do it because your brain doesn't monitor itself in any way that would let you know that it is in control, not you? What about if God forces you to do it and makes you think as if you are doing it because you want to, but really it's just God making you do it?

 

 

Do you think it is posible for Gods exsitance and power to be tangible but his perfect personality be intangible?

No, because then we still have the problem of how his intangible personality interacts with his tangible power, and how his existence can be tangible, but his personality, presumedly part of his existence, is not. You haven't solved anything, only made the problem more complex and irrational.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote Jizzyman

dont blame it on mexico... I really dont like guys like pat buchanan or something that say that mexicans cant turn into americans because they have big families... WTF! I find it is useful to blame it on quality of education, and history, and economic status...

 

I did not blame Mexico , I was just randomly naming countries because the US is

full of people from all over the world.

 

Quote Jizzyman

that isnt what he is saying, he was saying that religion is the problem, not god.

 

Yep , thats right, religion is the problem, not god.

Edited by ctel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mortukai:

 

I'm going to keep this short and sweet, simply because I don't care about debating enough to post posts as long as yours(not when I'm revising for exams).

 

Even if God would have to have a physical presence to exist(ignoring the debate about definitions), can we conclude that God doesn't exist without knowing everything about the physics of our universe? i.e. just because you can't track 'it'(or its interactions/effects), it doesn't mean that it's not there, and only when you know everything about the physics of the universe can you say what doesn't physically exist in it.

 

I know that the definition of God that Cerb posted is contradicted by at least one scientific theory, but theories are theories, and can't be said to represent certainty, and can't be recognised as involving every significant factor; hence the term 'theory'.

 

I too question why people are religious, but I don't believe that atheism is 'certain'.

 

ph34r.gif

Edited by Flash Caz
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even if God would have to have a physical presence to exist(ignoring the debate about definitions), can we conclude that God doesn't exist without knowing everything about the physics of our universe? i.e. just because you can't track 'it'(or its interactions/effects), it doesn't mean that it's not there, and only when you know everything about the physics of the universe can you say what doesn't physically exist in it.

Can we conclude beyond all doubt that God doesn't exist without first knowing everything about the whole universe? No. Likewise for exactly the same reasons we cannot conclude beyond all doubt that leprechauns, hydras, Shiva, succubi, 10ft spiders, gnomes, Odin, Isis, pixies, dragons, and flying pigs do not exist.

 

In other words, we can never prove absolutely that something does not exist. But fortunately, we don't need to. No, because the burden of proof lies with the side attempting to prove the existence of something. If I say "Bahamut exists", and you say "Prove it", I can't respond by saying "Prove to me that he doesn't", because that would be retarded. Instead, if I want to be taken seriously, I have to provide actual convincing evidence supporting my proposition.

 

So your whole "But you can't prove that he doesn't exist" argument is really completely pointless. Yes, we know that it is impossible for anyone to prove that anything doesn't exist. So what is important is that people prove what does exist.

 

Now, another point worth making is this whole deal with "existence". By focusing on existence, we are wasting our time, because no-one can prove that something does not exist, and no-one can prove that God does exist, just like no-one can prove that leprechauns exist. But that's not important. What is important is the characteristics of what is supposed to exist or not. I may not be able to prove that leprechauns don't exist, but if you claim that leprechauns should have some identifiable impact on the world, then I can test those claims. If you say that they all hide pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, I can use science to prove how absurd that proposition is, by showing that rainbows are merely light refracting through moisture in the air and thus have no "ends". If you claim that God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just I can use logical reasoning to show how these two things are absolutely incompatible and to suggest their co-habitation is to suggest an impossible paradox. If you claim that God is perfectly loving and yet unjustly punishes people with an eternity of torture for the slightest of crimes (like disbelief), then it barely even takes a rudimentary understanding of logic to see how the suggestion of a perfectly loving God is entirely incompatible with a God who sends people to the eternal fires of hell for any reason.

 

So no, we cannot prove that something does not exist, but we can prove that certain definitions of a thing are impossible or at least completely irrational given our scientific knowledge or ethical reasoning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mortukai

i'm not going to argue your point because most of what you are saying is true , but you said That if I claim that God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just you can use logical reasoning to show how these two things are absolutely incompatible and to suggest their co-habitation is to suggest an impossible paradox. If I claim that God is perfectly loving and yet unjustly punishes people with an eternity of torture for the slightest of crimes (like disbelief), then it barely even takes a rudimentary understanding of logic to see how the suggestion of a perfectly loving God is entirely incompatible with a God who sends people to the eternal fires of hell for any reason. But first of all we are not talking about a human in any way shape or form. We are talking about a ??? . We don't know what God is or how it works. But we do know that we are a designed Species. And the universe has order and design, meaning that something put it in order. And something designed us. And that something does exist.

 

My favorite toy is a computer so I will use it as an example.

If you create a computer and it does not run the way you want it to, it would not be wrong for you to destroy it and build another one. But it would be wrong for the computer to run a virus and destroy it self if that is not what you (the creator of it) wanted it to do. And the computer would be unable to question what you do unless you give it the power to do so. We are a vary sophisticated creation with the power to question our own creation, but what created us has the authority to destroy what it created with out being wrong or unjust because we are only what it created. The integrity of the computer does not apply to you, the creator of it. In order for your computer to run perfect, you have to get raid of everything that would keep it from running perfect. And it would not be wrong or unjust for you (the creator of it) to do. Even if the computer that you created says that it is.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love is a human concept.

 

Justice is a human concept.

 

Vengeance is a human concept.

 

Mercy is a human concept.

 

...

 

The point is, all of these traits which God supposedly possesses are human. If God possesses such human traits (which by his own words, he does), then in order for them to be the same concepts, they must work in the same way. There's no point in God saying that he is a just god if we think "just" means "no crime goes unpunished, all punishments fit the crimes", and he really means "torturing innocent babies until they die". We have a word for that: sadistic. So by virtue of the fact that God himself has used human words to describe himself, we must assume that he is telling the truth, and that his characteristics are able to be comprehended by us humans. In other words, his mercy works like a human's concept of mercy, his justice works like a human's concept of justice, etc. If they didn't he's lying, or at best, misleading people about his true nature, and he'd be better off saying something like "everything about me is completely beyond any of your abilities to comprehend", which sorta makes it impossible to ever be able to understand anything about God at all.

 

Also, no, we are not a designed species, and if we were, we'd be a f*cking sh*tload more efficient and advanced than what we are now. For example, a renowned authority in optical science named Helmholtz once said this about the human eye: "If an optician sent it to me as an instrument, I would send it back with reproaches for the carelessness of his work and demand the return of my money."

 

Along the same lines, the universe is FAR from ordered and showing evidence of design. For an extremely comprehensive look at all the ways the universe is clearly not ordered or designed, read this article here. It's a very lengthy read, but I managed to do it in just over 2 hours, so you should be able to manage, and who knows? You might learn a thing or two.

 

 

If you create a computer and it does not run the way you want it to, it would not be wrong for you to destroy it and build another one. But it would be wrong for the computer to run a virus and destroy it self if that is not what you (the creator of it) wanted it to do. And the computer would be unable to question what you do unless you give it the power to do so. We are a vary sophisticated creation with the power to question our own creation, but what created us has the authority to destroy what it created with out being wrong or unjust because we are only what it created. The integrity of the computer does not apply to you, the creator of it. In order for your computer to run perfect, you have to get raid of everything that would keep it from running perfect. And it would not be wrong or unjust for you (the creator of it) to do. Even if the computer that you created says that it is.

Problem A: Would you say that you love your computer? Would you say that the love you can feel for a computer is the same love God feels for us? Would you still do the same things so nonchalantly if you loved your computer? What if you gave the computer artificial intelligence and artificial emotions?

Problem B: If I create a baby, and it does not work the way I want it to, would it be wrong for me to destroy it and make another one? What if I create a puppy by breeding two dogs? What about if I breed a puppy, then release it to the wild to fend for itself, then I decide that I don't like what it is doing to the local ecology, can I destroy it then and still be perfect?

 

Thing is, justice is a universal principle. It doesn't work differently depending on how powerful you are or where you sit in the heirachical order of things. In a truly just system, a king would suffer the same penalty for murder as a peasant and a politician would suffer the same penalty for theft as a blue-collar worker. This is what justice is all about: the punishment fits the crime, not the person commiting it. "Might is right" and "One law for the rulers, one for the ruled" are not justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mortukai:

 

I'm going to keep this short and sweet, simply because I don't care about debating enough to post posts as long as yours (not when I'm revising for exams).

 

Even if God would have to have a physical presence to exist (ignoring the debate about definitions), can we conclude that God doesn't exist without knowing everything about the physics of our universe? i.e. just because you can't track 'it' (or its interactions/effects), it doesn't mean that it's not there, and only when you know everything about the physics of the universe can you say what doesn't physically exist in it.

 

I know that the definition of God that Cerb posted is contradicted by at least one scientific theory, but theories are theories, and can't be said to represent certainty, and can't be recognised as involving every significant factor; hence the term 'theory'.

 

I too question why people are religious, but I don't believe that atheism is 'certain'.

 

ph34r.gif

I would hate to think you were being kept here against your will; I would also hate for you to leave, though.

 

I'll just start by pointing out that there should be a space between an opening brcaket and preceeding text, just as there is a space between a closing bracket and proceeding text. So you have a sentance (with the bracketed part seperated by a space each side) which is correctly formed and clearer to read. These things are otherwise a bit of a headf*ck when reading them in a sans-serif font from a screen. The lazy quotes some people are doing are really useless, especially when they are quoting a couple of paragraphs which have blank lines between them and their comment is just a blank line below them. Impossible to read and totally useless. At least yours are in quote boxes.

 

Anyway, presentational rants aside, absolute proof is not required for the reasons explained by Mortukai. The term "proof" is used to indicate an adequate level of proof. In serious discussions like we are engaged in there would be a high - but still attainable - threshold required. Furthermore, defending a concept which completely defies proof of any sort (faith-based gods) by saying that the counter-arguments are not overflowing with millions of millions of terrabytes of evidence is utterly hypocritical and unintelligably backwards. This was also pointed out by Mort, in a different way.

 

I did not think an explanation of technically correct intangibility as thorough as Mort's would be required; I thought it was evident from my little examples that everything must have physical presence to have any possibility of existance. Good to see he used a different source for the definition, proving that the Cambridge method is not necessarily the ultimately perfect one which flash was hinting at. I'm glad he also clarified other issues at length and pointed out that only tangible things can interact with tangible things as the process of interaction can only a tangible one. Physical things can only interact with physical things, so for a god to interact with anything physical (such as bushes, fires and eyes) it must be physical.

 

Therefore the argument that god cannot be disproved because it is intangible must now be defeated. Can we test the definition in other ways, now? Just a reminder of what it was:

A god is the entity which created everything.

Gods are proposed without evidence and so ca be disproved without evidence. Any disproof which includes any evidence whatsoever seems all the more important when the proposals for god contain none.

Edited by Cerbera
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mortukai:

 

 

So no, we cannot prove that something does not exist, but we can prove that certain definitions of a thing are impossible or at least completely irrational given our scientific knowledge or ethical reasoning.

 

 

That, my friend, is exactly what I think.

 

Cerbera:

 

 

I'll just start by pointing out that there should be a space between an opening brcaket and preceeding text, just as there is a space between a closing bracket and proceeding text. So you have a sentance (with the bracketed part seperated by a space each side) which is correctly formed and clearer to read. These things are otherwise a bit of a headf*ck when reading them in a sans-serif font from a screen. The lazy quotes some people are doing are really useless, especially when they are quoting a couple of paragraphs which have blank lines between them and their comment is just a blank line below them. Impossible to read and totally useless. At least yours are in quote boxes.

 

 

I've always been confused about the brackets issue. Some use brackets in the way that you suggest, while others use them in the way that I (used to) use them.

 

 

Anyway, presentational rants aside, absolute proof is not required for the reasons explained by Mortukai. The term "proof" is used to indicate an adequate level of proof. In serious discussions like we are engaged in there would be a high - but still attainable - threshold required. Furthermore, defending a concept which completely defies proof of any sort (faith-based gods) by saying that the counter-arguments are not overflowing with millions of millions of terrabytes of evidence is utterly hypocritical and unintelligably backwards. This was also pointed out by Mort, in a different way.

 

I agree with the logicality of accepting an approach of a relatively very high level of certainty. I was only ever questioning whether it was a matter of complete certainty.

 

 

I did not think an explanation of technically correct intangibility as thorough as Mort's would be required; I thought it was evident from my little examples that everything must have physical presence to have any possibility of existance. Good to see he used a different source for the definition, proving that the Cambridge method is not necessarily the ultimately perfect one which flash was hinting at. I'm glad he also clarified other issues at length and pointed out that only tangible things can interact with tangible things as the process of interaction can only a tangible one. Physical things can only interact with physical things, so for a god to interact with anything physical (such as bushes, fires and eyes) it must be physical.

 

 

I should've been more discerning, I know.

 

‘Intangible’ shouldn’t even be in the dictionary.

 

 

Gods are proposed without evidence and so ca be disproved without evidence.

There is evidence, but it is far from 'reliable'.

 

ph34r.gif

Edited by Flash Caz
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gods are proposed without evidence and so ca be disproved without evidence.  Any disproof which includes any evidence whatsoever seems all the more important when the proposals for god contain none.

Any evidence that is given disregarded seen as nature or not logical by your logic.

When there is proof there is always denial.

 

@ Mortukai;

First of all, how can you see creation and breeding the same? Breeding is not creation.

And you said that, “Thing is, justice is a universal principle. It doesn't work differently depending on how powerful you are or where you sit in the heirachical order of things”.

That is so true, but human justice is based on what is just in order to run our world and live in peace, and the creator of that justice is not bound by it because it does not live in our world. For example, I would not be bound by the laws that I give to my computer in order for it to run. Only those laws would bind the image of me that I put into my computer. And if I did love my computer (giving monitor a hug) I would have to distroy it or part of it and recreate it to keep if from distroying itself if it became corrupted. And if the computer could reproduce itself and some of them are carrying a evil virus, I would just have to get rid of some of them after all the time and love I put into them.

OK I read,” A Refutation Of The Theory That The Universe Is Governed By Intelligence”

By Woolsey Teller

And he said that “God-believers have assumed that because they see "order" in the universe, an intelligence must have "ordained" this "order," or "planned" things the way we see them. Our idea of "order" is necessarily derived from the existing conditions, whatever these happen to be; and no matter what arrangement might prevail, we would be sure to observe "order.".”

Do you really believe that sh*t? If that is the case, nothing could ever be out of order. If the moon suddenly started spinning the other way then crashed into the sun, you would see that as order? Dam sh*t man , wtf.

Anyway, you said that God should have said something like, “everything about me is

completely beyond any of your abilities to comprehend”. That could be true and at the same time he could also make a human form or understanding that is based or our ability to understand. For example, if you made artificial intelligence and artificial emotions for your computer it would only understand you as what you give it to understand you as. And your body could never physically interact with your computer but with a program you and your computer could interact. You could even put your own image into it and make it a form of you. But not really you, it’s just a virtual digital form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gods are proposed without evidence and so ca be disproved without evidence.  Any disproof which includes any evidence whatsoever seems all the more important when the proposals for god contain none.
Any evidence that is given disregarded seen as nature or not logical by your logic.

When there is proof there is always denial.

That is true; religious persons do indeed have a tendancy to deny all the proofs against their beliefs. However, it would be wrong to stereotypicalise them in such a degrading manner. I have met religious persons who have been entirely reasonable, despite their openness to reason constantly putting their faith under great strain.

 

 

@ Mortukai;

First of all, how can you see creation and breeding the same? Breeding is not creation.

When things breed they create more of themselves. Right? Good.

 

 

And you said that, “Thing is, justice is a universal principle. It doesn't work differently depending on how powerful you are or where you sit in the heirachical order of things”.

 

That is so true, but human justice is based on what is just in order to run our world and live in peace, and the creator of that justice is not bound by it because it does not live in our world. For example, I would not be bound by the laws that I give to my computer in order for it to run. Only those laws would bind the image of me that I put into my computer. And if I did love my computer (giving monitor a hug) I would have to distroy it or part of it and recreate it to keep if from distroying itself if it became corrupted. And if the computer could reproduce itself and some of them are carrying a evil virus, I would just have to get rid of some of them after all the time and love I put into them.

 

OK, I read ”A Refutation Of The Theory That The Universe Is Governed By  Intelligence” By Woolsey Teller and he said that:

God-believers have assumed that because they see "order" in the universe, an intelligence must have "ordained" this "order," or "planned" things the way we see them. Our idea of "order" is necessarily derived from the existing conditions, whatever these happen to be; and no matter what arrangement might prevail, we would be sure to observe "order."
Do you really believe that sh*t? If that is the case, nothing could ever be out of order. If the moon suddenly started spinning the other way then crashed into the sun, you would see that as order? Dam sh*t man , wtf.AHAHAHA! Crap, I've gotta get back onto my chair now...

 

The point is very simple which is why I find it excruciatingly funny that you respond to it in such a thoroughly bamboozled way. Your example of the Moon crashing into the Sun would be seen as "ordered" in that it would have occurred through forces we recognise, such as a series of large meteor impacts or an explosive experiment being conducted by humans or another entity. We would see it as ordered because it was consistant with what we were familiar with.

 

If the universe was different and the Moon did orbit in the opposte direction, we would see that as ordered because it is what we would have always been familiar with.

 

 

Anyway, you said that God should have said something like, “everything about me is completely beyond any of your abilities to comprehend”. That could be true and at the same time he could also make a human form or understanding that is based or our ability to understand.  For example, if you made artificial intelligence and artificial emotions for your computer it would only understand you as what you give it to understand you as. And your body could never physically interact with your computer but with a program you and your computer could interact. You could even put your own image into it and make it a form of you. But not really you, it’s just a virtual digital form.
Your computer analogy is very entertaining but not much use to you. If you created these emotions and intelligence, would you construct them in such a way that they would be totally bemused by the nature of your existance? Would you create them so that this confusion would lead to aggression, war and the loss of millions of lives? Is that what a Good creator would do?

 

Additionally, if you cannot interact with your computer and/or your computer cannot interact with you, how could you use any program being run by the computer? How did you create it to start with? Why did you sever the interaction?

 

 

Sorry my post got so hysterical in places; I just never laughed so hard at a post in D&D before. I'm not trying to be malicious, I just couldn't contain my emotion in places.

Edited by Cerbera
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.