|
GOD
Apr 22, 2010 10:18:45 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Apr 22, 2010 10:18:45 GMT -5
That is an interesting post. It failed to provide a counter example.
|
|
koralth
Meteorite
Rest is for the dead.
Posts: 44
|
GOD
Apr 22, 2010 16:09:38 GMT -5
Post by koralth on Apr 22, 2010 16:09:38 GMT -5
Ehm, the intention of my last post was not to provide a counter-example, though I did attempt to, but it wasn't the counter-example I was hoping for. The one I pointed out was that once something is done God doesn't change it. How do I know? Because I remember something happening. There's no evidence that the course of history has been tampered with on a divine scale, which I CHOOSE to accept as evidence that God is incapable of changing history. It's a much weaker point than the one I wanted to make, which was
- God cannot make two mutually exclusive ideas come to fruition. In world war II, the allies won. It wasn't a case of the allies won AND the axis won, which are two mutually exclusive concepts. Another example is a phenomenon I've yet to see - A paper that is completely black AND completely white at once. Since such phenomena have not been witnessed, God cannot create a world in which two mutually exclusive ideas happen at once. How do I know? Because I BELIEVE it and it is self evident in the lack of evidence available.
I provide these two counter examples and in turn tear both them and the logic used to build the initial example piece from piece. A lack of evidence proves NOTHING.
Like I said, there's no problem in believing something that isn't founded in logic. In fact, it's better than OK, it's wonderful to have a healthy imagination and to build your code of ethics, even your entire philosophical structure from scratch. It's also better than OK to accept scientific ideas and theories and incorporate them INTO your logic. I have a beef, though, with taking the non sequitur results from these pseudoscientific fusions of ideas and calling them proofs, or using such ideas as the inherent lack of evidence for God as evidence in the debate for the existence of God. It's a cop-out, man.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
GOD
Apr 22, 2010 21:45:40 GMT -5
Post by FranticProdigy on Apr 22, 2010 21:45:40 GMT -5
The clockmaker (Deist) approach to God is the only one that makes even an iota of sense to me, and even then, I don't see that it's at all necessary for explaining the universe as we understand it. Frantic hit the nail on the head here with the quote. The common interpretation of a 'personal' God doesn't make sense. Another point could be that - - God knows everything - God therefore knows what we'll do before we do it (eliminating the concept of free-will, though some would argue that we still have a choice in our actions, but if God knows what we do before we do it, we'd have to know what he knows we'll do to thwart it, but he'd know we know since he knows EVERYTHING so he'd know we'd act in a different way, so to thwart it we'd have to know he knows we know that he knows, but he'd already KNOW THAT because of our understanding of him, looping us back to - meaning there is no free will. I fail to see how that's flawed human logic at all - the understanding that God knows everything implies the universe is one huge Rube Goldberg machine, ultimately, especially when one considers the laws of thermodynamics and how the universe is slowly ultimately heading towards entropy. Interesting thought, though I'll digress here so as not to bore everyone) - God created everything, knowing what would happen. - Genocides have been perpetrated following God setting in motion existence - Ergo - God should be tried for war crimes and Genocide because there is no free will and God set things up so that people would commit genocides and war crimes. The common interpretation of divine traits lead to some... depending on your perspective, horrifying or terribly fun, albeit dark implications. Hey, Frantic, though, have to say - I've heard many atheists use the same argument that one of the other posters here used to defend God - physics don't apply to the beginning. Apparently, the thinking is that if it's happening before existence, how on earth could you hold it to our understanding of the laws of physics, since there was nothing really to apply the laws of physics TO. Therefore, common knowledge of physical laws need not apply to the beginning of the universe. Grats on 100 posts! I don't understand how in Epicurus's poem is related to physics. Also when you say watchmaker argument, do you mean intelligent design?
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
GOD
Apr 22, 2010 21:46:35 GMT -5
Post by FranticProdigy on Apr 22, 2010 21:46:35 GMT -5
That is an interesting post. It failed to provide a counter example. I think you are one of the people that do not fully analyze the biblical teachings of the bible, and all the fallacies in it, all the contradictions, all the absurdities. Yet you still believe something so silly.
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 22, 2010 21:50:20 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Apr 22, 2010 21:50:20 GMT -5
You are wrong sir - I simply stated that the 'counter-example' that koralth said he would provide wasn't provided (most likely due to his state of exhaustion)
I play devil's advocate on nearly everything. I do not believe in the God described in the bible, that is most certainly absurd.
|
|
koralth
Meteorite
Rest is for the dead.
Posts: 44
|
GOD
Apr 22, 2010 22:45:36 GMT -5
Post by koralth on Apr 22, 2010 22:45:36 GMT -5
Oh, no no! Frantic, when I replied to your post, I admit I was not clear. My response to your Epicurus quote ended with the statement about how the common interpretation of God leads to some dark and fun implications. At the end of my post, I was discussing the statement you made after that about the beginning (if there is a God who created it, and if there is no God, how did existence come to be?)
There's an interesting argument I've heard used that if there was a point in time at which there was "nothing", then certainly the laws of physics (conservation of mass/energy/etc.) do not apply, and the unknown variables, parallel laws, etc. of such a state of the universe, which at that time must be nothing for the argument to work, can allow for anything. Of course, the man who used that argument was met with some degree of frustration upon the Christian returning and stating that if something CAN come from nothing then why not God, who could survive throughout existence? I didn't necessarily say it was a GOOD argument, just an interesting one. One that I have too rudimentary a knowledge of physics to adequately analyze.
|
|
koralth
Meteorite
Rest is for the dead.
Posts: 44
|
GOD
Apr 22, 2010 22:49:06 GMT -5
Post by koralth on Apr 22, 2010 22:49:06 GMT -5
Tyme, I've got a question, and it's purely out of curiosity... You say we exist on the fourth dimension. Not third?
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 22, 2010 23:02:20 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Apr 22, 2010 23:02:20 GMT -5
3d creatures live in 4 dimensions - they must travel through a dimension (ours is tyme - hehe I'm punny)
2d creatures must live on a 3d object, 1d creatures must travel on a plane, 0d creatures travel along a line
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 26, 2010 14:19:26 GMT -5
Post by GojuRyuKarateWolf on Apr 26, 2010 14:19:26 GMT -5
I dont normally discuss religious things, because I have one foot in scientifical theories and one foot in religion, but all I have to say is: God (if he exists) is testing us all the time, and He can do anything for sure. I just don't know about making a rock so big even He couldn't lift it.
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 28, 2010 6:30:19 GMT -5
Post by kawerty on Apr 28, 2010 6:30:19 GMT -5
I have said this in some christianity post,yet i can't help to articulate my point once more ; 'Of all things i have learnt about the 'Religion' that it speaks of, is that it is nothing more than tribes created,Each tribe have a more or less similar seet of rules it is governed by,buy yet,these tribesmen don't wish to reconise that it is actually the same. Why i said it,Taoism and Buddhism aside(These are a totally different concept of what i will be speaking of now), These tribes mainly Islam(And Muslim),Christianity,Catholics,Judaism. all are governed by a set of rules,which is written in a book and the Book is written by the God Himself. Also,These Gods have a Specific 'Messenger' recorded. These then led to debates on which is the Alpha-Religion. Also,I as Atheist myself,somehow feel that there is no need to acknowledge/disprove of religion,bearing in mind that these Religions only 'cater' to people of specific needs. People who are willing to believe,who can believe in what they have Faith on. That said,i want you bear in mind that , No matter who you are,what you believe in or what is the colour of your skin ; We are all no much different or superior to one another. If religion is not the ''thing' for you, so be it. It is much like food ; Come prefer Olives,yet some Loathes them.However,no one needs to know why,or should i say : No one knows why. You can say its the taste,the appearance,yet you can't truly point down on the sole factor of why you dislike it. Its just the same for religion. If you like it,go on and eat it,if you dislike it,then don't! No use hating on it for it is YOUR OWN OPINION of it. Just keep in mind of the 'Olive Theory' and it'll not bother you,at all . ' Also,if you think you believe in GOD,then i have to remind you about Pascal's Wager. The wager is described in Pensées this way: “ If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is.... ..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all." Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. Source : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 28, 2010 9:27:44 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Apr 28, 2010 9:27:44 GMT -5
I think that you have used Pascal's Wager incorrectly - as you have clearly stated that you see no benefit in believing or even arguing in a god.
According to decision theory - Pascal's Wager says that everyone should live as though they believe in God - since there is no negative outcome.
If you live as if you believe in God and He exists - you go to heaven (positive) If you live as if you believe in God and he does not exist - then nothing happens and you die. (null) If you live as if you do not believe in God and He does exist - either: nothing happens or you go to hell (negative or null) If you live as if you do not believe in God and he does not exist - nothing happens and you die. (null)
In any case - the argument is not a case about religion or how one should live, but about whether an omnipotent being could exist.
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 29, 2010 8:00:39 GMT -5
Post by kawerty on Apr 29, 2010 8:00:39 GMT -5
I think that you have used Pascal's Wager incorrectly - as you have clearly stated that you see no benefit in believing or even arguing in a god. According to decision theory - Pascal's Wager says that everyone should live as though they believe in God - since there is no negative outcome. If you live as if you believe in God and He exists - you go to heaven (positive) If you live as if you believe in God and he does not exist - then nothing happens and you die. (null) If you live as if you do not believe in God and He does exist - either: nothing happens or you go to hell (negative or null) If you live as if you do not believe in God and he does not exist - nothing happens and you die. (null) In any case - the argument is not a case about religion or how one should live, but about whether an omnipotent being could exist. But i believe it also can be interpreted as : If you live as if you (truly) believe in God and He exists - you go to heaven (positive) If you live as if you (truly) believe in God and he does not exist - then nothing happens and you die,which may or may not waste ur precious little time adhereing to HIS rules and not live life to its fullest. (null/Negative) If you live as if you Believed in god just to get to heaven/ do not believe in God and He does exist - either: nothing happens or you go to hell (Negative .) If you live as if you do not believe in God and he does not exist - nothing happens and you die After having fun and living your life the way you want to,with FULL control over it. (Positive) ---------------------------------------------------- So the point i'm trying to get across, is that either way its a 50-50 chance. So there's really no point in discussing about him here any way cause Since its a 50-50 chance of his exsistance,the tip of one side of the scale must be from the evidence that have been provided with us. While many says he does not exists because there's no prove of Him existing, The bible say that Doubting his existance IS a prove of his existance.(contradicting i know,but pretty simple to figure out). This is just a never ending debate on both Religion and the existance of God And/Or the definite Alpha-God. So,why bother wasting your time here just to prove each other is wrong? Would it not be more efficient to just stick with your choice and not waver others about it? If they chose to believe,it don't really do you harm in a direct way,does it now? What truly matters is bring peace to both parties of the debate,put our differences aside and work towards peace. Yea i know it sounds stupid,but if we truly want peace like how we preached for wars and conflicts to end,putting away our differences that segregate us will sure help. Be it science or religion,so many things that differs them,but yet so similar at the core of it. Why can't religion and science work Together in the stead of countering each other? What are you/they trying to prove? What good would it do at the end of the day? NOTHING. So what can't these two sectors work together and come up with theories that benefits us , than coming up with theories that would seperate us? Send the pope into space,Let him have a look,and let him show his faith to you. You will learn many things and will definately have a win-win solutions to things like child abuse,crimes and what nots. Racism back then was a problem,killings were all over and many lives were lost. Years passed and we've slowly put it aside,look where we've came from there. If we put these religion and God matter aside and keep that values to yourself and not 'forcing' others to believe what you think is right,a few years down the road you will look back and know that this will be a choice well made. Ultimately,having a religion or not having one does not make you any more different than the other,neither does it makes you feel more superior,so why dispise each another on this matter of things? Yes,i know you are trying to prove your point(s),but would it not do greater things to put these (sorry to say) silly thinkings aside? You might judge me from what i say,but i can tell you,i'm proposing this for the tribe called Humanity. Its still up to you to carry it out at the end of the day. -Jaks .
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
GOD
Apr 29, 2010 13:29:15 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on Apr 29, 2010 13:29:15 GMT -5
My take on Pascal's Wager:
1) If you believe in God and you're right, you go to heaven. (Positive)
2) If you believe in God and you're wrong, you've wasted a lot of time and money that could have been used for better things, like helping the poor. (Negative)
3) If you don't believe in God and you're right, you've made the best for your life in this regard. (Positive)
4) If you don't believe in God and you're wrong:
i) ...and God is truly merciful, you'll still go to heaven, after living your life to the best possible extent within the natural world. (Positive) ii) ...and God is truly heartless enough to punish people for using logic and reason, then He is a cruel master who never deserved your faith (Negative no matter what you did)
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 29, 2010 16:25:59 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Apr 29, 2010 16:25:59 GMT -5
Pascal's wager can be taken anyway you like - but Pascal was agnostic - when he said "live as though there were a God" he did not mean: believe in God and follow his rules - he meant: live a moral and just life. Pascal did not believe in God, merely accepted that he could not judge whether or not there was one.
Again I will point out that the point of the thread is to argue for or against the existence of a god. While you state that the argument between religion and science is pointless, I would like to call your attention to the fact that: 1. Religion - by definition is any set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the Universe - so Science is a religion - and so Science is not arguing against Religion, but against other religions. 2. This thread is not an argument of Science vs. other religions. It is a debate on the existence of a god. Many prominent scientists have full faith in the existence of a god, most of them are Deists, and most of them are the genius minds that have won Nobel Peace Prizes. At the end of the day - the decisions you make come down to your moral code - and when your moral code is centered around a god, it is different then when it is not centered around a god(please take note I'm not saying either is better than the other, simply stating that they are different and nobody can argue against that with any valid argument). If everyone had similar moral codes then it would be easier and more efficient to work out moral issues and other problems including crime and some of the other things you stated. So while I do recognize that some religions should put aside their differences with Science, I firmly believe that the issue of whether or not a God exists, is an important debate. It should not result in hate - NO DEBATE SHOULD. But it is a debate worth having, and a debate worth finding an answer to.
Imagine a world where everyone stood on one side of this argument, then the world would be unified in a great ideal, whether it be that a god exists, or that a god does not exist. And through that, many problems will be solved.
Playing devil's advocate here - be gentle.
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 29, 2010 16:33:20 GMT -5
Post by thejourney on Apr 29, 2010 16:33:20 GMT -5
im probly gonna get alot of crap for this but
i believe there is no god not because im not open to the fact there isnt a god
i believe when you worship a god as the creator of the universe then you subject youreself to never knowing the truth if science proves there is a god then i will believe it but until that day i dont believe in god
anyway i also belive this thread is only talking about the existence of a christian god all religions are just as ridiculous as the next so dont rule out any of them
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 29, 2010 16:36:04 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Apr 29, 2010 16:36:04 GMT -5
I do not limit myself or my arguments to a Christian God as I find that the Judea-Christian God is the most irrational one I have seen in my short study of religion.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
GOD
Apr 29, 2010 18:50:11 GMT -5
Post by FranticProdigy on Apr 29, 2010 18:50:11 GMT -5
This thread is all opinionated.
|
|
fletcherblack
Meteorite
I'm for whatever you're against and against whatever you're for.
Posts: 13
|
GOD
Apr 30, 2010 16:53:44 GMT -5
Post by fletcherblack on Apr 30, 2010 16:53:44 GMT -5
in the question of "can god make a boulder so heavy he can not lift it" it presents a problem in and of itself. if he can he has a physical limitation if he can't he has a creative limitation. either way, he can't be all powerful. Trying to explain God's actions and abilities with imperfect human logic seems futile (and blasphemous). God's own perfect logic alone can explain God's perfection. But such perfect logic could never be put in terms us puny humans could understand. Well isn't that just the perfect argument for Christians? Humans are too dumb to argue the existence of God. Well isn't that convenient. Humans invented God, I'm sure we can disprove his existence as well.
|
|