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

 

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.

That’s ok Cerbera, it’s all good, life should be fun sometimes.

 

Crebera

Additionally, if you cannot interact with your computer and/or your computer cannot interact with you,1. how could you use any program being run by the computer? 2.How did you create it to start with? 3.Why did you sever the interaction?

 

 

1.The same way you interact with your computer now, mostly comunication, conversation,

and to keep it in good running condition.

2.Say I built a chip with silicone, and used radio, tv parts and what not.

3.Because i'm the one who made it. I want to interact with what I made for enjoyment, happiness, satisfaction or pleasure.

 

And I don’t see creation and breeding as the same.

 

Creation; Definition, To create (MAKE)

verb

to make something new, especially to invent something:

Charles Schulz created the characters 'Snoopy' and 'Charlie Brown'.

The Bible says that God created the world.

Breeding;Definition.breed

verb bred, bred

to keep animals for the purpose of producing young animals in a controlled way, or (of animals) to have sex and reproduce:

Terriers are bred for their fighting instincts.

breed

noun:a particular type of animal or plant:

a breed of dog/cat/horse/sheep/cattle

breeding

noun:the keeping of animals or plants in order to breed from them:

The family's business was horse-breeding.

reproduction

noun: the process of producing babies or young animals and plants:

human/sexual reproduction

 

 

Crebera

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

 

 

Not what I said., I said “If the moon suddenly started spinning the other way then crashed into the sun, you would see that as order?”.

Acording to Teller, anything we see is order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, there is quite a large amount of confusion in your posts ctel, I suggest re-reading Cerbera's and my posts a few times before replying to them. You've misunderstood alot of our meanings.

 

 

Additionally, if you cannot interact with your computer and/or your computer cannot interact with you,1. how could you use any program being run by the computer? 2.How did you create it to start with? 3.Why did you sever the interaction?

 

1.The same way you interact with your computer now, mostly comunication, conversation,

and to keep it in good running condition.

2.Say I built a chip with silicone, and used radio, tv parts and what not.

3.Because i'm the one who made it. I want to interact with what I made for enjoyment, happiness, satisfaction or pleasure.

 

No, he wasn't asking about those details, you completely missed his meanings. He was asking how you, an intangible God, could actually interact with the physical realm in order to create humans. Your answer is completely unsatisfactory in this regard, because: 1. God doesn't communicate with humans in any way even vaguely resembling how you can communicate witha computer; 2. Did God use his hands to grab pre-existing bits and pieces from here and there and stick them together into a human?; and 3. What purpose did you make it for? What use does it have for you? Why is it no longer serving its purpose? As a human, you need a computer to perform tasks, play games to alleviate boredom, communicate with other people, etc. But if God is perfect, what possible use could he have for humans? If he has no use for them, then why would he create something useless? And you cannot create something to gain happiness from it unless you first have the need for happiness which is not satisfied.

 

 

And I don’t see creation and breeding as the same.

 

Creation; Definition, To create (MAKE)

verb

to make something new, especially to invent something:

Charles Schulz created the characters 'Snoopy' and 'Charlie Brown'.

The Bible says that God created the world.

Breeding;Definition.breed

verb bred, bred

to keep animals for the purpose of producing young animals in a controlled way, or (of animals) to have sex and reproduce:

Terriers are bred for their fighting instincts.

breed

noun:a particular type of animal or plant:

a breed of dog/cat/horse/sheep/cattle

breeding

noun:the keeping of animals or plants in order to breed from them:

The family's business was horse-breeding.

reproduction

noun: the process of producing babies or young animals and plants:

human/sexual reproduction

Ok, for starters, if I create a drawing, I am taking pre-existing materials and re-arranging them in a way that I can interpret as something new. In addition, the ideas for my drawing are not isolated and unique, they are drawn from my past experience. Snoopy is a dog, Charlie Brown is a little human boy. Charles Shultz's "creation" of those characters was entirely physical and nothing more than a rearrangment of existing physical matter at every level.

 

This is exactly the same as breeding, either humans or other animals. Now, I know you believe in creationism, so let's assume that God did create Adam and Eve. Guess what? Every human from then on was "created" by breeding between Adam and Eve and their offspring and their offspring and so on. Nothing on this planet has been created, even if you believe in creation, because nothing alive today isn't the result of breeding (either sexually or asexually). When two animals f*ck, the baby animal that is "created" is actually compiled from matter that the mother eats and that is floating around in the placenta. All that is happening is that the matter from food is being delivered to the embryo through the umbilical cord and then integrated and rearranged to make the baby grow.

 

In the context that we are talking about "creation" and "breeding" are interchangeable. Especially with your computer analogy, because, as you said, you "built a chip with silicone, and used radio, tv parts and what not", much like a new baby animal is built from things that you feed your parent animals and the genetic material of the parents which was transfered when they boned.

 

The point is, if you create a new animal by breeding some of your pets, you are saying that it's ok to do whatever you want with them because you created them and they wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for you (true), and they were only created to serve a purpose (also true). However, they are living creatures, dependant on you for sustenance, with emotions and thoughts and instincts, and even some "human" traits, like loyalty, compassion, trust, and territoriality. So even though your puppies (humans) aren't human (God), and even though they (humans) only exist because of you (God), puppies (humans) still share traits with humans (God), and some of those shared traits (like empathy, love, compassion, honour, duty, trustworthiness) ensure an ethical consideration that prevents humans (God) from treating puppies (humans) badly or knowingly allowing harm to come to them. What I'm saying, is that humans in general are far more ethical and morally considerate, or at least more capable of being so, than God.

 

 

 

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.

You actually understood that part in bold? Holy sh*t! I read that like nine times and couldn't for the life of me make heads or tails of it.

 

 

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.

Ummm, seriously, that's messed. For starters, God never created human justice. God's idea of justice is very clear in the Bible, and religions have been practising it for millenia. It's not justice, it's conquest and "might is right". Humans created the Golden Rule. Does that mean that humans don't have to abide by it? In a way, yes, because don't have to abide by it (few actually do), but they can all agree that they should.

 

Now, you also seem to have completely misunderstood the concept of "universal principle". This means that it applies to everything, all the time. No exceptions, ever. Not you, not me, not God, not a dog. This principle will always be exactly what justice is, by definition. Just like darkness is always the absences of light, in any setting, at any time, it is a universal concept, because the definition is such that it excludes anything that isn't itself. If I have a bunch of light, then I don't have darkness. If I have anything that is not justice, then I have injustice. This is really very basic, and I hope you can understand now, that God is not just, not by a long shot, never has been, and never will be. The definition of justice ensures that God is unjust. And if you try to say "but our laws don't apply to him", then you are perfectly describing the unjust concept of "might is right", where power makes a being exempt from responsibility and accountability. You can never ever exempt any being from accountability without creating injustice.

 

 

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

Not what I said., I said “If the moon suddenly started spinning the other way then crashed into the sun, you would see that as order?”.

Acording to Teller, anything we see is order.

Ok, you completely misunderstood the meaning of your reading. That article never says that "anything we see is order". It only says, correctly, that our perception of order is dependent upon the existing system. If humans evolved and lived in a universe where moons "suddenly" start reversing their spin and crashing into the sun, then yes, they would percieve this as order, because that is how their universe works. If planets moved in triangular orbits instead of circular ones, then that would be percieved as order. If objects randomly fell out of the sky, then that would be percieved as order, because that is all humans would have known, and for them, a world where things don't fall out of the sky would seem bizarre. If everything moved like pieces on a giant chessboard, then this would also seem like order to any intelligent creature that developed in such a universe. You cannot apply your existing knowledge of order to such hypothetical systems, because you have not grown in such a system, so you perciever our system as ordered. But if you read further into that article, you'd see that there is almost zero order in our universe at all, and a tremendous amount of waste, with trillions and trillions of stars being created, spinning forever into oblivion, never passing another star in order to create planets, then collapsing or exploding after a few billion years. A tremendous waste of energy when you consider the fantastically immense amount of energy each star has. One star, fully harnessed, could fuel everything every human could ever dream of doing for over 5 billion years if we had a population of 1000 billion people, leaving plenty of room for technological endeavors we have yet to imagine. And yet we'll barely see one trillionth of our sun's energy over the course of our planets' life, and 99.99999% of that is wasted just warming up things like rocks, dirt, the oceans, deserts, etc. Of course we see some order! In a system as immense as ours, with such a phenomenal volume of pure waste, it would be a total shock if there wasn't something resembling temporary order created out of it!

Edited by Mortukai
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote tables  cry.gif  cry.gif  cry.gif

 

I'd like to read it, but I just can't sad.gif

haha vary funny. Go on read it; you know you want to.

 

 

Mortukai

No, he wasn't asking about those details, you completely missed his meanings. He was asking how you, an intangible God, could actually interact with the physical realm in order to create humans

 

 

I understood, but that would take to long. I was trying to keep is simple. Creating a simple computer, Did not want to get all into electronics and biology. I thought you would understand what I was trying to say.

 

 

Mortukai

If I have anything that is not justice, then I have injustice. This is really very basic, and I hope you can understand now, that God is not just, not by a long shot, never has been, and never will be. The definition of justice ensures that God is unjust. And if you try to say "but our laws don't apply to him", then you are perfectly describing the unjust concept of "might is right", where power makes a being exempt from responsibility and accountability. You can never ever exempt any being from accountability without creating injustice.

 

 

100% right, buuuut, if there is corruption in the universe, and that corruption is done by what I created,

Am I not responsible to correct it? Should the thing that I created that is corrupt continue to live and multiply?

And if I (with my responsibility over what I created) judge and distroy what is corrupt, how does that make me unjust?

And if I create a human form of me to represent me and take the judgment of humans that accept the responsibility of freedom so that I can breed them into humans that have the knowledge but not the influence or the capacity to become corrupted, would that also make me unjust?

 

 

Mortukai

Of course we see some order! In a system as immense as ours, with such a phenomenal volume of pure waste, it would be a total shock if there wasn't something resembling temporary order created out of it!

 

Well humm, I guess. But I see days, seasons, years as order. If days suddenly went on for weeks I would think things are getting out of order.

Considering that we don't really know what is going on out there and why, maybe what we see as waste could be some form of construction or preparation.

I also think that billions of humans will one day explore the universe and be creative in it.

Edited by ctel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, Ctel, seriously, if you don't use quotes correctly people won't be able to follow your arguments. Screens are very difficult to read at the best of times and so, as a writer, you must make every effort to make that stress easier for your readers. It is so desperatly simple to change your half-quotes in this most recent post into proper quotes that it just looks like you don't give a f*ck about what you are writing.

 

Here is the code from your first quote:


MortukaiNo, he wasn't asking about those details, you completely missed his meanings. He was asking how you, an intangible God, could actually interact with the physical realm in order to create humans

All you had to to was change the closing square bracket for an equals sign and place it after the author name, then remove the pointless new lines. Like this:


No' date=' he wasn't asking about those details, you completely missed his meanings. He was asking how you, an intangible God, could actually interact with the physical realm in order to create humans.[/quote']

Additionally, when quoting something your reply should start immediatly after the closing square bracket of the /QUOTE tag, with the quotes text ending immediatly before the /QUOTE tag. Like this:


No' date=' he wasn't asking about those details, you completely missed his meanings. He was asking how you, an intangible God, could actually interact with the physical realm in order to create humans.[/quote']Reply goes here...

Please, just take a few seconds to neaten your posts, fix your grammar, get author names and fix typos. People will be able to understand what you are saying with less effort. Readers appreciate it when writers use these conventions because the reader can then concentrate on the content rather than the technical presentation.

 

New paragraphs should have a blank line between them as well because there is not first-line indentation in online text. Big changes in subject are sometimes seperated by two blank lines. You certainly should not be starting new lines when you are part way through a sentance! You don't have to quote this part but please do take it on board.

 

I have had to rebuild some of these quotes to get the original statements. Please don't remove the original statement from quotes because you remove what the whole focus of the conversation was. The rest of this post will be about the content but will you just look at how much I had to write about your technical presentation?

 

 

 

Additionally, if you cannot interact with your computer and/or your computer cannot interact with you, 1. how could you use any program being run by the computer? 2.How did you create it to start with? 3.Why did you sever the interaction?
  1. The same way you interact with your computer now, mostly comunication, conversation, and to keep it in good running condition.

     

  2. Say I built a chip with silicone, and used radio, tv parts and what not.

     

  3. Because i'm the one who made it. I want to interact with what I made for enjoyment, happiness, satisfaction or pleasure.
No, he wasn't asking about those details, you completely missed his meanings. He was asking how you, an intangible God, could actually interact with the physical realm in order to create humans.
I understood, but that would take to long. I was trying to keep is simple. Creating a simple computer, Did not want to get all into electronics and biology. I thought you would understand what I was trying to say.Too long for what? Just explain how an intangible being can interact with anything without becoming tangible. If any of the three methods you suggested were used, you would have become tangible:-
  1. If you can communicate with something, even by a very remove method, it is tangible.

     

  2. If you built it, you are tangible. Otherwise you would have been unable to touch the components or move them in any other way.

     

  3. What a malicious c*nt of a creator you must be. Not to mention seriously incompetent as you couldn't make it so it would do what you wanted. Oh, you also become tangible by having the exceedingly tangible effect of destroying the system.
If you are using yourself as analogy of the Christian God, then I apologise for saying your analogy was completely useless because you got that last part spot on. Point is, although you've demonstrated the hate-filled attitude of God, you have not shown how He could be intangible. Do you accept that gods (specifically God) must be tangible, else they cannot exist?

 

 

If I have anything that is not justice, then I have injustice. This is really very basic, and I hope you can understand now, that God is not just, not by a long shot, never has been, and never will be. The definition of justice ensures that God is unjust. And if you try to say "but our laws don't apply to him", then you are perfectly describing the unjust concept of "might is right", where power makes a being exempt from responsibility and accountability. You can never ever exempt any being from accountability without creating injustice.
100% right, buuuut, if there is corruption in the universe, and that corruption is done by what I created, am I not responsible to correct it? Should the thing that I created that is corrupt continue to live and multiply? And if I (with my responsibility over what I created) judge and distroy what is corrupt, how does that make me unjust?

 

And if I create a human form of me to represent me and take the judgment of humans that accept the responsibility of freedom so that I can breed them into humans that have the knowledge but not the influence or the capacity to become corrupted, would that also make me unjust?

You created something which became corrupt. As an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent creator-god, your attributes meant this:-
  1. You knew the system would become corrupt and chose not to use your knowledge to redesign it at the start.

     

  2. You knew the system was becoming corrupt and did not use your power to intervene and put things right.

     

  3. You sat around watching the corruption and suffering and did nothing, failing to use your benevolence.

     

  4. You eventually decided that instead of using your knowledge and power and benevolence to right your wrongs, you destroyed what you had created in an act of pure (and apocalyptic) evil.
This is why I made my earlier statement about how you demonstrated how God must hate what he has created to make it suffer so much. Of course, this is nothing to actually worry about because creator-gods do not exist.

 

 

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
Not what I said. I said: “If the moon suddenly started spinning the other way then crashed into the sun, you would see that as order?”

 

Acording to Teller, anything we see is order.

Of course we see some order! In a system as immense as ours, with such a phenomenal volume of pure waste, it would be a total shock if there wasn't something resembling temporary order created out of it!Well humm, I guess. But I see days, seasons, years as order. If days suddenly went on for weeks I would think things are getting out of order. Considering that we don't really know what is going on out there and why, maybe what we see as waste could be some form of construction or preparation.

 

I also think that billions of humans will one day explore the universe and be creative in it.

Ctel, you quoted the wrong part of my post, that is why you did not understand why the Moon shooting off would still be order, even in our Universe:
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.
The Moon would only shoot off in a different direction if there was a cause for it to do so; this is the system in which we currently inhabit. It would be impossible for this to happen spontaneously due to conservation of mass/energy, causality and other easily observed aspects of our cosmos. This is proven by the utter absence of perfectly spontaneous events.

 

If we were in a cosmos where such events were possible, they would be prevalent and so we would be familiar with them and consider them as order. Of course, we could not actually exist in a spontaneous system because gravity would occasionally stop and our lungs would turn into Buckingham Palace.

Edited by Cerbera
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cerbera

Thank you for that quote information and stuff. It was driving me crazy, every time look at the preview post, it was not the way I typed it. Then when I post it, it would look totally different. So thanks.

 

 

You created something which became corrupt. As an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent creator-god, your attributes meant this:-

 

  1. You knew the system would become corrupt and chose not to use your knowledge to redesign it at the start.

  2. You knew the system was becoming corrupt and did not use your power to intervene and put things right.

  3. You sat around watching the corruption and suffering and did nothing, failing to use your benevolence.

  4. You eventually decided that instead of using your knowledge and power and benevolence to right your wrongs, you destroyed what you had created in an act of pure (and apocalyptic) evil.

 

This is why I made my earlier statement about how you demonstrated how God must hate what he has created to make it suffer so much. Of course, this is nothing to actually worry about because creator-gods do not exist.

It's not that I hated what I made, it's just that I want my human creation to be part of the life system. In order to do that, would I not have to show my creation everything, good and bad? Show them the consequences of evil? Let them become corrupt so that they could understand what it is so that they could make good choices in life?

If they know what is behind doors #1,2 and 3 they will always choose the right door.

If they know and understand evil, they could always avoid it and do good.

Yes I knew that they would become corrupt, but how could they know what evil will do without going there? How could they make a good choice without knowing the outcome of a bad one?

How could they live in peace without knowing what would cause war?

Yes I could have redesigned it. But I did not want to hold its hand and guide it forever. I want it to run good on its own. If I tell my human not to put his finger in a socket because he will get shocked, he will do it anyway because he don’t know what shocked is until he does it.

Do you think that without the influence of satan and with the knowledge of good and evil and a history of the way things were, and my human form being responsible for my creations evil, my creation could be perfect?

And I did not “destroy what I had created in an act of pure (and apocalyptic) evil”.

I only took out the parts that could not be repaired or reprogrammed. That’s not evil.

Would you keep a dog that keeps biting everybody and you too?

Should a man that continues to murders and rape with no remorse in his personality be permitted to live with the rest of them? And would it be wrong for me to remove him and his seed?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ctel, again, you've missed the point by a large margin. You're asking "is it wrong to punish something when it is corrupt/wrong/evil/whatever?" and nobody is going to say "yes" to that. We all know that punishment is important for humans. But before I tell you what the point is, now is a good time to highlight one of the many large flaws is using computers as an analogy.

 

If your computer gets a virus, do you take out the hard drive and burn it? Do you grab a hammer and smash up your cpu? Do you punish your computer in any way? No? Why? Because that will never make things better, only worse. If your computer gets a virus, you care for it, by looking around for antivirus software, installing the latest definitions, and then maybe you install a firewall once the virus is gone and keep extra vigilant with updating your definitions. If something goes wrong with a computer, the only really sensible way to do anything about it is to take care of your computer. God has never done anything like this, and with humans, many are too stupid to respond to anything but punishment.

 

But the point that you are missing is what happens after a judgement is made. Really, I don't care if God is going to judge people for irrelevant things or not. The fact is, he punished their finite sins with infinite punishment, and all sinners, regardless of the severity of their sins, recieve the most severe punishment imaginable to the human mind: eternal burning and torture. If there are two people, who live identical lives, except that one believes in Jesus and the other does not, then the one who believes in Jesus will be "saved" and blessed for eternity, and the one who doesn't will burn forever in hellfire.

 

What I'm having trouble with, is how you can actually sit there and tell me that your God is just and has a right to do that to anyone simply by virtue of the fact he created them. I'm sorry, but far beyond the scope of any human, your God is wrong, hateful, sadistic, uncaring, amoral, unjust, and just plain pure evil.

 

Now, regarding everything in your last post, you've again missed Cerbera's point. He's not saying "why wouldn't you fix it?", he's asking "why would you make it that way in the first place?". Think about this, really hard. Imagine you are a genius computer and robotics technician, and you possess all the knowledge in the universe about how to create and program computers. You are so good, you could be stuck in a forest, and within a week you'd have made a couple of intelligent thinking robots out of twigs, leaves, cobwebs, vines and rocks. But you aren't out in the forest. You are sitting in a warehouse where everything you could ever need is at your disposal, and you have alot of free time. You decide that you'd like to make some intelligent robots. Remember, you are able to make any robot in any way you can imagine. Nothing is hard for you. So how will you design them? Will you build them full of flaws, making them ill-equipped to deal with their environment unless they become inventive and violent? Will you design them so that they are prone to malfunction and breaking? Will you design them so that they have very little defence against becoming "corrupted" unless they rely heavily on you? How would you design a sentient being? I'm willing to bet that if you had the knowledge and foresight that God is supposed to have, that you'd make robots at least 10,000,000 times better than us humans in every way imaginable. If you wouldn't, I sure would.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If your computer gets a virus, do you take out the hard drive and burn it? Do you grab a hammer and smash up your cpu? Do you punish your computer in any way? No? Why? Because that will never make things better, only worse. If your computer gets a virus, you care for it, by looking around for antivirus software, installing the latest definitions, and then maybe you install a firewall once the virus is gone and keep extra vigilant with updating your definitions. If something goes wrong with a computer, the only really sensible way to do anything about it is to take care of your computer. God has never done anything like this, and with humans, many are too stupid to respond to anything but punishment.

Now, regarding everything in your last post, you've again missed Cerbera's point. He's not saying "why wouldn't you fix it?", he's asking "why would you make it that way in the first place?". Think about this, really hard. Imagine you are a genius computer and robotics technician, and you possess all the knowledge in the universe about how to create and program computers. You are so good, you could be stuck in a forest, and within a week you'd have made a couple of intelligent thinking robots out of twigs,

leaves, cobwebs, vines and rocks. But you aren't out in the forest. You are sitting in a warehouse where everything you could ever need is at your disposal, and you have alot of free time. You decide that you'd like to make some intelligent robots. Remember, you are able to make any robot in any way you can imagine. Nothing is hard for you. So how will you design them? Will you build them full of flaws, making them ill-equipped to deal with their environment unless they become inventive and violent? Will you design them so that they are prone to malfunction and breaking? Will you design them so that they have very little defence against becoming "corrupted" unless they rely heavily on you? How would you design a sentient being? I'm willing to bet that if you had the knowledge and foresight that God is supposed to have, that you'd make robots at least 10,000,000 times better than us humans in every way imaginable. If you wouldn't, I sure would.

Ok, yes I would look around for antivirus software, install the latest definitions, and then maybe install a firewall once the virus is gone and keep extra vigilant with updating my definitions. But if something goes wrong with a part that cannot really be repaired, I would have to replace that part, throw it away into the lake of garbage where it will be forever because once something exist, it exist forever.

And no, it’s not that I would design them so that they have very little defence against becoming "corrupted" unless they rely heavily on me. But I would design them with the will to do what they want. That is the part that you do not understand. Becoming corrupted is because of what they think and do. To keep them from becoming corrupted I would have to limit there minds even more to keep from doing whatever they want to do. And I would also have to keep them from knowing what wrong decisions are. I would have to take half of there emotions away. Maybe take pain away because it would not make since for them to have happy emotions after stepping on a nail. But then how would they know that they stepped on one?

But now check this out. If there are two people, who live identical lives, except that one believes in Jesus and the other does not, then the one who believes in Jesus will be "saved" and blessed for eternity, and the one who doesn't will burn forever in hellfire.

But why? If they live identical lives, why would I do that? It is because they both are corrupt. They are both from the same seed. They all came from Adam who had the free will to do whatever he wanted and listen to his wife instead of his creator. They both have evil thoughts even though one does not act on all of them. And they both want. Give me this, give me that. They have not learned what wanting so much will lead to. So in order to keep any of the two, I would choose the one that has a mind that is willing to except the fact that his way of thinking is corrupted and it corrupts him. And is willing to learn how to live by the one who created him. And beleave that I am the one that created him. And now that they understand what good and bad is, and how the world will end up because of bad decisions, I will redesign them and take away any evil influences that are in the universe that would efect them, redesign there temporary world and let them live forever in peace.

Could I complete my creation and give them free will and everlasting life without them knowing the out come of their way of thinking? Should my first robot be complete with free will and everlasting life without knowing the out come of bad decisions? Should I test my robot before I let him live forever?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If your computer gets a virus, do you take out the hard drive and burn it? Do you grab a hammer and smash up your cpu? Do you punish your computer in any way? No? Why? Because that will never make things better, only worse. If your computer gets a virus, you care for it, by looking around for antivirus software, installing the latest definitions, and then maybe you install a firewall once the virus is gone and keep extra vigilant with updating your definitions. If something goes wrong with a computer, the only really sensible way to do anything about it is to take care of your computer. God has never done anything like this, and with humans, many are too stupid to respond to anything but punishment.

 

Now, regarding everything in your last post, you've again missed Cerbera's point. He's not saying "why wouldn't you fix it?", he's asking "why would you make it that way in the first place?". Think about this, really hard. Imagine you are a genius computer and robotics technician, and you possess all the knowledge in the universe about how to create and program computers. You are so good, you could be stuck in a forest, and within a week you'd have made a couple of intelligent thinking robots out of twigs, leaves, cobwebs, vines and rocks. But you aren't out in the forest. You are sitting in a warehouse where everything you could ever need is at your disposal, and you have alot of free time. You decide that you'd like to make some intelligent robots. Remember, you are able to make any robot in any way you can imagine. Nothing is hard for you. So how will you design them? Will you build them full of flaws, making them ill-equipped to deal with their environment unless they become inventive and violent? Will you design them so that they are prone to malfunction and breaking? Will you design them so that they have very little defence against becoming "corrupted" unless they rely heavily on you? How would you design a sentient being? I'm willing to bet that if you had the knowledge and foresight that God is supposed to have, that you'd make robots at least 10,000,000 times better than us humans in every way imaginable. If you wouldn't, I sure would.

Ok, yes I would look around for antivirus software, install the latest definitions, and then maybe install a firewall once the virus is gone and keep extra vigilant with updating my definitions. But if something goes wrong with a part that cannot really be repaired, I would have to replace that part, throw it away into the lake of garbage where it will be forever because once something exist, it exist forever.You are God, you can do anything. There is nothing you cannot fix just by wanting it fixed. There is no excuse to fix the things which your all-knowing self knows are wrong.

 

 

And no, it’s not that I would design them so that they have very little defence against becoming "corrupted" unless they rely heavily on me. But I would design them with the will to do what they want. That is the part that you do not understand. Becoming corrupted is because of what they think and do. To keep them from becoming corrupted I would have to limit there minds even more to keep from doing whatever they want to do. And I would also have to keep them from knowing what wrong decisions are. I would have to take half of there emotions away. Maybe take pain away because it would not make since for them to have happy emotions after stepping on a nail. But then how would they know that they stepped on one?

 

But now check this out. If there are two people, who live identical lives, except that one believes in Jesus and the other does not, then the one who believes in Jesus will be "saved" and blessed for eternity, and the one who doesn't will burn forever in hellfire.

 

But why? If they live identical lives, why would I do that? It is because they both are corrupt. They are both from the same seed. They all came from Adam who had the free will to do whatever he wanted and listen to his wife instead of his creator. They both have evil thoughts even though one does not act on all of them. And they both want. Give me this, give me that. They have not learned what wanting so much will lead to. So in order to keep any of the two, I would choose the one that has a mind that is willing to except the fact that his way of thinking is corrupted and it corrupts him. And is willing to learn how to live by the one who created him. And beleave that I am the one that created him. And now that they understand what good and bad is, and how the world will end up because of bad decisions, I will redesign them and take away any evil influences that are in the universe that would efect them, redesign there temporary world and let them live forever in peace.

 

Could I complete my creation and give them free will and everlasting life without them knowing the out come of their way of thinking? Should my first robot be complete with free will and everlasting life without knowing the out come of bad decisions? Should I test my robot before I let him live forever?

Hey, this is more like it, this is proper theology. The underlying problem is, you are an all-powerful God with endless resources. You could have just made them with any knowledge you wanted them to have built-in. This world is just your ethical obstacle course for your robots to stumble round suffering? An evil and voyeuristic creature you are indeed.

 

Let's take a specific example. A baby girl is born with a birth defect which causes her constant pain and discomfort. There is no cure for this condition and she must take medication regularly just to remain alive. She must make frequent visits to the hospital where invasive tests must be carried out to assess her condition. She is just a baby and is terrified by all this because she does not understand what the hell is going on. Why would you give so blameless and defenceless a creation so harsh a lesson?! How was she corrupt? Just what will this poor girl learn?

 

If I decided that I needed to test some people's ethical strength by putting them in terrible situations, you would think I was the most evil of all men. Yet it is God who is doing this to millions of starving Africans, orphaned Asians and homeless Europeans right now. Not to mention the baby girl.

 

 

 

Then there are some underlying faults in your own logic. You know everything, so you know whether or not the people you create will choose corruption or goodness. You know whether each person you create will burn or be saved. You know precisely what the outcome will be, so there would be no point undertaking the exercise. Conversely, as you know everything there is no point in you ever doing anything because you know exactly what will happen. The simple fact is that such an entity cannot exist because its behaviour does not match its definitions of perfection as well as fulfilling this:

God is the entity which created everything.

 

Edited by Cerbera
Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrhhhh f*ck me. Anytime I ever try to spin on the god issue my brain has a cold snap and I fall over, but I like the issues and will give it a red hot go.

 

Cerbera, by the way you discuss this, I get the feeling that this is a dead issue for you, and not so much of a topic as a place of re-assurance. By your sealed definitions from the first post, it sounds as if you already have this bagged and tagged, and a good idea might be to live by your philosophy that was borne, or being born, of this foundation/discussion. This seems like a place wear the stupid get stupider, and the rest get vague and tangential.

 

Refuting a definiton like "god" as a basis for a descisions on living seems to me like standing in very muddy ground. Is the dictionary version of god any better than the biblical version?, or some random hippies for that matter?. It is such a vague word to be basing a total refutation on, and it supplies endless ammo to some people here who's arguementative nature consists extending the vague question line along with some tossy soapboxing.

 

I believe in the possiblity of a uniting force between all things, or a flow to the universe that is essentially out of our hands individually, and therefore attains the same scary godlike status, but without the stupid beard. It's worth a discussion I think, but your aim here smacks of looking for a whipping boy, but one that you know will always be there to whip, no matter how much you kick it's silly godlike arse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Arrhhhh f*ck me. Anytime I ever try to spin on the god issue my brain has a cold snap and I fall over, but I like the issues and will give it a red hot go.

 

Cerbera, by the way you discuss this, I get the feeling that this is a dead issue for you, and not so much of a topic as a place of re-assurance. By your sealed definitions from the first post, it sounds as if you already have this bagged and tagged, and a good idea might be to live by your philosophy that was borne, or being born, of this foundation/discussion. This seems like a place wear the stupid get stupider, and the rest get vague and tangential.

 

Refuting a definiton like "god" as a basis for a descisions on living seems to me like standing in very muddy ground. Is the dictionary version of god any better than the biblical version?, or some random hippies for that matter?. It is such a vague word to be basing a total refutation on, and it supplies endless ammo to some people here who's arguementative nature consists extending the vague question line along with some tossy soapboxing.

 

I believe in the possiblity of a uniting force between all things, or a flow to the universe that is essentially out of our hands individually, and therefore attains the same scary godlike status, but without the stupid beard. It's worth a discussion I think, but your aim here smacks of looking for a whipping boy, but one that you know will always be there to whip, no matter how much you kick it's silly godlike arse.

Rather than speculating on my motives for creating this topic, how about you actually discuss the topic? If you have a proof for the existance of god, then offer it. If you have a disproof of the existance of god, then offer it. I created this topic to put forward the results of my study of this topic and see if anyone had anything better. A rational mind would ignore the motive behind the publicising of an idea and simply evaluate the merit of that idea.

 

Furthermore, if you had studied this topic thoroughly you would have seen that I have offered definitions of God to be tested. I was very careful in the Misc - Atheism article to stress that it was a disproof/refutation of creator-gods and that I welcomed any discussions on the matter to develop my understanding and challenge my current beliefs. Indeed, I state that I am skeptical of the arguement even being a disproof of creator-god and invited anyone to tell me what the faults with it were. So, in short, you are way off the mark.

 

Beleiving in a possibility is meaningless if that possibility cannot be tested. How does beleiving in this vague uniting force improve your life, or help explain any sort of phenomena? What are the effects of this uniting force? Why is it necessary? What even makes you think that it might exist? I would suggest that you have not any real conviction to believe in so weak a concept (which is good) but rather feel something is missing from your picture of the universe. Am I wrong?

Edited by Cerbera
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this was already brought up, I'm definitely not going to read the whole thing, I will keep it short therefore.

 

"The Matrix" was especially interesting for me because it made clear for me that what we perceive as reality may have little to do with it's actual identity. ...There is a Chinese story that goes like this. Man wakes up after dreaming of being a butterfly and asks himself "am I a butterfly dreaming of being a man?"...How about "Waking Life", did you see that movie? It is intensely interested (and my copy was stolen from me) but at one part the theory is presented that perhaps all existence is us saying no to "God's great [something or other" and then once we say yes it's over.

 

If this is so then how is it possible to prove anything? That "God" exists, doesn't exist?

 

anyway, tell me if this was brought up already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've been an atheist since ever for the same reason I said in the other topic, animals don't believe in gods and neither should we.

do animals believe in anything?

 

It seems that what's being pushed is something of the type: "I know nothing! and that beats your 'I believe in God'".

 

Which is interesting because while believing in god has the advantage of that if you are right you go to heaven not believing has no real advantages other than the ability to say "I believe in truth" which is shallow...

 

but then again I haven't read nietzche, nor any of the other guys so I'm pretty ignorant.

 

 

you had studied this topic thoroughly you would have seen that I have offered definitions of God to be tested. I was very careful in the Misc - Atheism article to stress that it was a disproof/refutation of creator-gods

 

A creator god is a god which created the universe? well.. what if God IS the universe? I don't see any part of the bible that says he created the universe, that he created light out of darkness yeah, but no sh*t about creating the universe. What if god (who is immense) just cut a piece of his toenail and here we are? Beats me.

 

I like the writings of Mark Twain on the subject though, "Letters from earth". Really interesting. But to disprove god? How would you disprove something that doesn't want to be proven?

Edited by muitobrodaman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope there is no such thing as heaven. When it's time to move on (give other life a chance like the worms that eat you), it's time to move on.

And none of that cremating crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

???... right... because your body won't feed them anyways? and you don't want heaven because you want to move on instead of feeling bliss? I kindof like the idea of feeling bliss, you know...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

you had studied this topic thoroughly you would have seen that I have offered definitions of God to be tested. I was very careful in the Misc - Atheism article to stress that it was a disproof/refutation of creator-gods
A creator god is a god which created the universe? well.. what if God IS the universe? I don't see any part of the bible that says he created the universe, that he created light out of darkness yeah, but no sh*t about creating the universe. What if god (who is immense) just cut a piece of his toenail and here we are? Beats me.

 

I like the writings of Mark Twain on the subject though, "Letters from earth". Really interesting. But to disprove god? How would you disprove something that doesn't want to be proven?

A Guide to Presenting Arguments.

 

If your god is not the creator of all things then he is not "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" and so cannot be a god. Did it create everything, which is impossible, or it did not create everything, which means it is not the supreme being? Thanks for actually getting involved with this fundamental contradiction in how creator-gods operate. It is the simplest way I know of to show they are impossible with a very high level of certainty.

 

Gods cannot sheild themselves from the rigours of human intellect and proof (or disproof). This is partially because they do not exist, partially because they are a concept we invented anyway but mostly because all things are subject to analysis.

 

 

(EDIT) I'll just supply an example whilst my lunch is cooking. Suppose I defined a witch as being anyone who flew around on a broomstick. By subjecting this proposition to scrutiny and experimentation we could easily see that such an entity is impossible. Firstly, there is no propulsion system on a broomstick. Secondly, a broomstick generates no lift. Thirdly, there are no control surfaces to direct the course of such a flight. Fourthly the aerodynamics of a person straddling a broomstick horizontally are so instable that it would require a fly-by-wire system akin to that of the Eurofighter or recent MiG fighters to keep under control. All these things combine to show that this definition of a witch is impossible.

 

In the same way, one subjects the proposal that a creator-god is defined as the entity which created everything. By subjecting this definition to logical analysis and comparing with observations of our world we can see that such an entity is impossible. Firstly, everything would include whatever the god is, so the god would need to create itself. This is impossible. So, straight away, we find the proposal of a creator-god is untennable.

 

If the god simply IS the universe then there is no need to call it a god.

Edited by Cerbera
Link to post
Share on other sites
="kahunab12 @ Nov 4 2004' date=' 17:54"']

Actually, despite his poor reasoning andsimple stupidity, kahuna has touched upon a point. Consider:

 

* The universe contains absolutely everything.

* The universe has not always existed.

* Therefore the universe must have, at one time, been created.

* In order to be created, it must have been created from something.

* It is impossible for that something to have existed outside of the universe.

* Therefore the universe cannot exist.

 

How can you say it is impossible for that something to exist outside of the universe? It depends on what THAT SOMETHING is you're talking about. Are you talking about materialistic matter or spiritual matter. I am assuming it's the materialistic thing you're talking about since you're assuming if something you can't see, then it must not have existed. But there are things we can not see beyond our eyes...so you CAN NOT say there is nothing exist outside of the universe. There are a lot of things we are not able to comprehend and without knowledge of these things, there is no way you can say things can not be existed outside the universe. We're all creating ideas based on science and science won't get you no where. Science won't help solve phenomena like ghosts and ufos....science have no answer for spirituality. The day science can help solve the mystery of spirits is the day i will believe nothing exist outside of this universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How can you say it is impossible for that something to exist outside of the universe? It depends on what THAT SOMETHING is you're talking about. Are you talking about materialistic matter or spiritual matter. I am assuming it's the materialistic thing you're talking about since you're assuming if something you can't see, then it must not have existed. But there are things we can not see beyond our eyes...so you CAN NOT say there is nothing exist outside of the universe.

Ok, this is a ridiculous argument and I'm going to show you why. This is what your argument looks like:

 

-Premise 1: If you cannot see a thing, it does not exist.

-Premise 2: There are things which do exist which we cannot see.

-Conclusion: Therefore you cannot say that nothing exists outside our universe.

 

Here is where I may have once insulted you with words like "moron", "stupid", and "f*cking retarded", but I won't do that. Instead, I'll point out that you are attacking a straw man. Nobody here has said that if you can't see it, it doesn't exist... except you, and you only said that so you could attack it. Hence a straw man argument.

 

Premise 2 is correct. There are many, many things which do exist which we cannot see, like atomic structure, magnetism, gamma-rays, gravity, etc. But this is ok, because we don't need to see them. All we need to do is be able to observe them in some way, either directly or indirectly. If it is observable in some way, either directly or through its effects on other things, then we can say that it exists with high certainty. If it is not observable in any way whatsoever, neither directly nor indirectly through its effects on things, then we cannot say with any certainty that it exists. In fact, we can say with a fairly large degree of certainty that it does not exist, especially since nobody could ever produce any evidence otherwise.

 

There is no point in talking about things which we cannot prove to exist, unless you want to talk about fairy tales of leprechauns having raunchy anal sex with unicorns on a moon made of cheese.

 

 

We're all creating ideas based on science and science won't get you no where. Science won't help solve phenomena like ghosts and ufos....science have no answer for spirituality. The day science can help solve the mystery of spirits is the day i will believe nothing exist outside of this universe.

First, science does not create ideas. Nature creates ideas, science observes them. When scientists develop a new theory, they aren't just pulling sh*t out of their asses and saying "Hey, check out this awesome new idea I just made!". They are simply collecting a series of observations and using logic to deduce a reason behind these observations, and this reason is then tested to death, then tested some more, then accepted as a theory. If it's a really good theory, then it becomes the predominate theory.

 

Second, does "solve " the phenomena of ghosts and UFOs and spirituality. Actually, technically, psychology answers those questions, but it's a science, just not what people normally think of when they think "science". The fact is, I'm sorry to tell you, that UFO's do exist, but they aren't aliens from other planets come to probe illiterate inbred rednecks, they are just regular Unidentified Flying Objects, ghosts do not exist, spirituality does not exist, santa does not exist, the tooth fairy does not exist, and yes, I'm afraid to say, the easter bunny isn't real either. I know it's hard to accept this all at once, but it's better that you learn about it now before you get too old and it becomes embarrasing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

here is proof 'god' is bullsh*t - 'God' is meant to be kind and caring. If this is so, then why did he base evolution around Natural Selection (Natural selection is basically pain and suffering) Natural selection is where the weak die to give way to the strong. e.g in the environment the strong babies survive whereas the weaker babies die. You would have thought 'god' would make it that simply all babies are born equal and survive, then there would be no pain and suffering. Its also scary that all 'gods' representatives, priests and so on like to rape children mad.gif , they are 'gods' representatives, that means 'god' obviously likes to do it too... cry.gif

 

Also you people whom beleive in god, you people are said to be the scared ones as you are affraid of the unknown, you need to know a conclusion to life, and thats why u say "oh once i die im going to heaven."

Edited by icygirl33
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

here is proof 'god' is bullsh*t - 'God' is meant to be kind and caring. If this is so, then why did he base evolution around Natural Selection (Natural selection is basically pain and suffering) Natural selection is where the weak die to give way to the strong. e.g in the environment the strong babies survive whereas the weaker babies die. You would have thought 'god' would make it that simply all babies are born equal and survive, then there would be no pain and suffering. Its also scary that all 'gods' representatives, priests and so on like to rape children mad.gif , they are 'gods' representatives, that means 'god' obviously likes to do it too... cry.gif

 

Also you people whom beleive in god, you people are said to be the scared ones as you are affraid of the unknown, you need to know a conclusion to life, and thats why u say "oh once i die im going to heaven."

Not all people who believe in a God (or Gods) think that whatever the higher power is controls nature. That's silly, and you're silly for thinking that. To have a basis of your agruement on that is a bit ignorant. I feel the dragon argument had a better representation on what the athiests in the thread were trying to prove. All you're saying to me is that "people who believe in God are wrong, because of natural selection, if there was a God it wouldn't allow this to go on." Well what if, as someone who believes in a higher power, I say that I think it's a part of the complexities of its creations...what then? You're better off using Mortukai's arguement above about using the 5 senses because I wouldn't be able, nor anyone else would be able to prove it wrong.

 

About going to heaven. It's a belief, you can't disprove it. I guess we'll all find out when we die, won't we?

 

And if you're going to be a strong positioned athiest, read through Evis's and Mortukai's posts (Cerbera's too). They're good at arguing this, where as you aren't very good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not all people who believe in a God (or Gods) think that whatever the higher power is controls nature. That's silly, and you're silly for thinking that.

I thought the whole idea of gods was that they were omnipotent? Wouldn't the magical man in the clouds be able to control the actions of all beings with his unlimited power, and end the suffering caused by the same forces that cause naturl selection? If this god sees all this suffering, has the chance to stop it all, and chooses not to, what does that say about your god?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not all people who believe in a God (or Gods) think that whatever the higher power is controls nature. That's silly, and you're silly for thinking that.

I thought the whole idea of gods was that they were omnipotent? Wouldn't the magical man in the clouds be able to control the actions of all beings with his unlimited power, and end the suffering caused by the same forces that cause naturl selection? If this god sees all this suffering, has the chance to stop it all, and chooses not to, what does that say about your god?

Yeah, I know about the Riddle of Epicurus.

 

I guess the only way I really could argue back is on a spiritual basis, but obviously you aren't spiritual. So it would be kind of pointless? I really don't know what kind of answer you're looking for. If it isn't physical, which religion really isn't, why argue the topic? I don't know lol.

 

Also...yeah, you kind of got me. I'm not really into theology tounge.gif

Edited by Lazzo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does arguing semantics really prove anything at all? Whether a god exists or doesn't exist isn't going to be determined by the definition of the word 'universe'.

 

Personally, I consider myself an agnostic. I haven't come across anything that completely discounts the possibility of some sort of creator/supernatural being, nor do I know enough to believe in one.

 

Note for the unaware: Disproving Christianity doesn't disprove a god of some sort, nor does disproving evolution make Christians (or any other religion) automatically right.

 

 

I thought the whole idea of gods was that they were omnipotent? Wouldn't the magical man in the clouds be able to control the actions of all beings with his unlimited power, and end the suffering caused by the same forces that cause naturl selection? If this god sees all this suffering, has the chance to stop it all, and chooses not to, what does that say about your god?

 

Something to ponder (fliched from a movie, I think): If you ever have children, would you want to protect them? Probably so. Would you let them ride a skateboard? Drive? Play football? Even knowing that such things are dangerous and your children could get hurt? Killed even? To completely protect someone, you have to sacrifice their freedom. Allowing someone freedom means letting them make mistakes, letting them get hurt, letting them deal with it themselves. Just because you could step in as a parent and protect your kid doesn't mean you always should. They don't mature without having to rely on themselves at some point. So, if there is a god, can he/she/it be judged on a different criteria for allowing us the freedom to make our own mistakes and learn from them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've had several new thoughts on this issue since I last debated Cerbera on the question, and since I have been invited to participate, I will state them here.

 

Pre-big-bang questions

 

The big bang created matter. Energy created the big bang. Where did the energy come from?

 

This is no new or perfect logic, and we could trace the cycle backward all day, but it is necessary to point out to begin the discussion propperly.

 

 

Law of recursive recall

 

How do you know that you are reading this at this very instant? Various answers I'm sure. But there's a problem: It takes a certain amount of time to become aware of any change in environment. Therefore, by the time we begin to understand any given instant, that instant has already passed.

 

We must thus conclude that we do not understand anything that is happening, but only things which we remember to have happened. Therefore presence of mind in this moment is dependant on upon memory of it in the next. Furthermore, memory of this moment in the next moment is dependant upon memory of that memory in the moment after that. Extend this cycle to its conclusion: self-awareness in any given moment is dependant upon an eternal recollection of that moment. In otherwords, we cannot ever be alive if we will one day be dead. Eternal life is neccessary for self-awareness.

 

 

Articulation of existence

 

How many dimensions are there? For most purposes we assume 3, some theories put it around 6, but either way, there is something important: the number is fixed.

 

This becomes crucial when you ask the question that religion attempts to answer, not how many, but why? Why are there 3 dimensions? Why not 15? Why is the locus of all points equidistant from a central point a circle? Do you really believe that a model of space could not exist where said locus was rectangular, or cubic? Then molecules could be square, and fit together much better, which would mean that this universe model would form more easily.

 

Think of your wildest childhood fantasy, the brink of your imagination. If one were allowed to tinker with all the laws of the universe, one could create a world where the walls produce ice cream, or allow Alice's rabbit hole to become reality.

 

The point is, everthing is dependant upon a set of rules that are completely arbitrary. They apply to everything, and for the big bang to happen they would have to apply to the nothing that pre-dated everything, since matter could not predate the concept of matter. Furthermore, since these rules could be defined in any number of rediculous ways, we must assume that this way was chosen randomly, and no "system" can produce a random result, thus proving the existence of God, or this system was chosen because it was the most logical, which is impossible, since logic itself is defined as part of the system.

 

 

The zero-sum game

 

WARNING: This does not disprove atheism, it simply makes it reeeeely depressing.

 

This is a nother "why" type theorem. Look at this: why don't you, as an atheist, kill someone? well, because you care about how that person feels. But this is no good, because that person won't remember you killed them, as far as they know, they lived a full life. Non-existance is not affected by existance. Now, what about the people who survive, to care about that person? Ditto. All of them will eventually die, as will you. Thus eventually your crime will be erased, as will your good deeds, as will anything else, because the world won't always be.

 

What's wrong with Cerbera's "system" is it produces NULL for every output. Nothing we do changes the course of the system. If so, to articulate it plainly: F*ck it. How can you ultimately prove any action different from another if they all yield the same resultant? All things end in utter nullification, and nothing we do alters that system. Why not just die now? Or later for that matter? Ending your suffering has no effect either really.

 

 

Wanker rule - the ease of the atheist

 

You are not an atheist.

 

Why? Because you are sane. Any contemplation of ones own non-existance, any true beleif in atheism, would result in psychological self-destruction. The horror of eternal death is inescapable.

 

Atheism is popular because it is easy. You drink and smoke and snort and prick your share of c*nt like the grandest whores of the universe. Isn't life grand when you get to define your own morals?

 

I do not imply that Atheists are completely immoral, simply that they do not wish to stand up to scrutiny. With God out of the way, we are masters of the universe, and many people need that power. Thus they publicly deny God, when infact, you will find, they do not subconciously comprehend the fact that they will die. Teenagers and the young are attracted to atheism because they don't need a church to tell them they will never die, their incompletely-developed brains produce this beleif automatically. Even I cannot vouch for my perfect understanding of this fact. Without a need for that comfort, why bother with the rest of religion? Why serve someone you believe can give you nothing?

so, if you think that it is improbable that the big bang happened, why are you soo shure that, out of nowhere a magical god came out of nowhere?

Link to post
Share on other sites
chris_sk8er4life

="kahunab12 @ Nov 4 2004, 17:54"]

Actually, despite his poor reasoning andsimple stupidity, kahuna has touched upon a point. Consider:

 

    * The universe contains absolutely everything.

    * The universe has not always existed.

    * Therefore the universe must have, at one time, been created.

    * In order to be created, it must have been created from something.

    * It is impossible for that something to have existed outside of the universe.

    * Therefore the universe cannot exist.

How is anything impossible? "With god, anything is possible"

Nothing is impossible, you have to remember that 40 or so years ago, computers were just science fiction. Now what, almost everyone has a computer today. Dont you think you should wait until you declare something impossible?

-I Hate You-
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does arguing semantics really prove anything at all?  Whether a god exists or doesn't exist isn't going to be determined by the definition of the word 'universe'. 

 

Personally, I consider myself an agnostic.  I haven't come across anything that completely discounts the possibility of some sort of creator/supernatural being, nor do I know enough to believe in one.

 

Note for the unaware: Disproving Christianity doesn't disprove a god of some sort, nor does disproving evolution make Christians (or any other religion) automatically right.

 

 

I thought the whole idea of gods was that they were omnipotent? Wouldn't the magical man in the clouds be able to control the actions of all beings with his unlimited power, and end the suffering caused by the same forces that cause naturl selection? If this god sees all this suffering, has the chance to stop it all, and chooses not to, what does that say about your god?
Something to ponder (fliched from a movie, I think): If you ever have children, would you want to protect them? Probably so. Would you let them ride a skateboard? Drive? Play football? Even knowing that such things are dangerous and your children could get hurt? Killed even? To completely protect someone, you have to sacrifice their freedom. Allowing someone freedom means letting them make mistakes, letting them get hurt, letting them deal with it themselves. Just because you could step in as a parent and protect your kid doesn't mean you always should. They don't mature without having to rely on themselves at some point. So, if there is a god, can he/she/it be judged on a different criteria for allowing us the freedom to make our own mistakes and learn from them?Semantics are important when the proposal is a semantic one. Gods are semantic proposals because they use technical terms to describe very specific entities. Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, benevolence and so on. Furthermore, creator-gods bring yet another precise feature: Being the creator of all things. Therefore if one finds that these very specific proposals are not possible, then they must be rejected. The proposals would have been disproved. This answers your first question.

 

To address your second paragraph, the first post in this topic does exactly that.

 

To address you final point, if one were omnipotent (as gods are supposed to be) then one would change these things so that they were no longer dangerous. Simple as that. When you can do anything, you could make all things safe. Yet gods choose to keep things dangerous and difficult for us.

 

 

Actually, despite his poor reasoning andsimple stupidity, kahuna has touched upon a point. Consider:-

 

  1. The universe contains absolutely everything.

     

  2. The universe has not always existed.

     

  3. Therefore the universe must have, at one time, been created.

     

  4. In order to be created, it must have been created from something.

     

  5. It is impossible for that something to have existed outside of the universe.

     

  6. Therefore the universe cannot exist.
How is anything impossible? "With god, anything is possible"

Nothing is impossible, you have to remember that 40 or so years ago, computers were just science fiction. Now what, almost everyone has a computer today. Dont you think you should wait until you declare something impossible?

Lots of things are impossible. This is because possibility is a human concept governed by human rules based on human perception. For example:-
  1. A point is a location but it has no size.
  2. A line is all the locations between two points.
  3. A point is not a line.
  4. It is impossible for a point to be a line.
That's from Euclidean geometry, in case you think you saw it somewhere before. This proves that there are things which are impossible, which can be shown to be impossible and which will always be impossible. No matter how long you wait, a point will never become a line.
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
  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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