God

Page 8 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Go down

Do you believe?

47% 47% 
[ 35 ]
53% 53% 
[ 39 ]
 
Total Votes : 74

Re: God

Post  Occultdude17 on 2012-01-04, 20:24

I read it.

Also, I'd like to establish/re-establish some points here.

1) You cannot disprove God because he is, by his nature, undetectable. Absence of evidence, whilst a strong indication, does not conclusively disprove him.

2) You also cannot prove God, for the same reason, unless he decides to stick his head down from the clouds and say hello.

3) Given points 1 and 2, belief in God is based on faith, while disbelief is based on scepticism. Both are acceptable.

4) The real world is based on facts and evidence. It is thus unwise to rely on faith instead of fact.

5) Given as humans do not know everything, neither do you. Please do your research before posting an argument, and don't be offended if somebody asks to view your sources or questions their validity.

6) Telling LIES is counterproductive and just frustrates everybody. Defending points after they have been proven wrong is just as bad.

7) No matter what your viewpoint, people will make fun of you. Either laugh awkwardly or don't respond, but getting in a huff makes things nasty.

Hope my wall of text isn't too big.
avatar
Occultdude17


Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Halberdier on 2012-01-06, 08:40

For a frame of reference, there is possibly a teapot floating in orbit in proximity to the sun. If we can decide that you can't prove god is there, this "possible" being shouldn't appear so relevant.

With all due respect, you can't tell me that it isn't possible to disprove god without telling me that it isn't also impossible to prove him. And you didn't. But if you've already admitted that he can't be surely there and he can't be surely absent, why in that case say he's relevant?
avatar
Halberdier
€5,000,000,000
€5,000,000,000

Posts : 928
Birthday : 1995-01-19
Join date : 2011-06-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Occultdude17 on 2012-01-06, 18:22

Russell's Teapot can be proven if we go out there and find a teapot. God can be proven if he reveals himself to humanity. Until then, we make no assumptions.

He's relevant because his name's in the title of this forum topic. However, I gather that's not what you mean, so I ask you to clarify.

Btw: Jesus vs. Yugi, who wins?
avatar
Occultdude17


Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Potus-Mat on 2012-01-06, 22:55

Saying God cannot be proven or disproven get gets us nowhere. Basically, such a saying is to say all previous discussions are for not. I, on the other hand, can think of a handful of ways to determine a god.
avatar
Potus-Mat


Posts : 4412
Birthday : 1994-03-13
Join date : 2011-07-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Occultdude17 on 2012-01-07, 03:05

Potus-Mat wrote:Saying God cannot be proven or disproven get gets us nowhere. Basically, such a saying is to say all previous discussions are for not. I, on the other hand, can think of a handful of ways to determine a god.

Impressive claim. Care to enlighten us on how you would "determine a god"?
avatar
Occultdude17


Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Potus-Mat on 2012-01-07, 20:14

At this point, it is little more than a thought experiment, but...
Create an artificial intelligence whose intelligence and processing speed far surpasses ours, and place it in a virtual copy of our world. The AI would have three drives: To gain perfect understanding of its world, to determine if it is being observed, and to communicate with its observers. Now, the AI would either do all of this, or realize its limitations and repeat the process, creating an AI with greater intellect and speed in a virtual reality inside of its own virtual reality. This process would continue until the the nth AI (AIn) has completed the first drive: perfect knowledge. Now, here I could say that we have proven God because we pretty much made a god, but that would be cheating. The nth AI will either detect the AI above it (AIn-1), meaning that detection of the divine is possible, or it will not, meaning that even the omniscient cannot perceive what is in a higher plane. Assuming the first, AIn will then proceed to the ultimate drive: communication with AIn-1. Again, it will either work, meaning communication with divinity is a possibility, or it will not, meaning it is not. AIn-1 will then take this data and recreate it, and so shall AIn-2, AIn-3, et cetera, until we can do so and see if there is a God.
avatar
Potus-Mat


Posts : 4412
Birthday : 1994-03-13
Join date : 2011-07-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Halberdier on 2012-01-08, 00:02

That's not a true or possible experiment, and the answer would probably be 42.

Besides, any AI that we could knowingly make would be limited to "the logical," which is by default, removed from the possibility of interacting with any sort of god that we understand and describe, as he was already explained, a thing of faith.

Furthermore, it's unlikely that these life forms would repeat their experiment, because at a certain point, they would grow weary and realize that their creators existed (Us, or whatever AI preceded them) and figure out that their purpose there was to ponder or specify their purpose there.
avatar
Halberdier
€5,000,000,000
€5,000,000,000

Posts : 928
Birthday : 1995-01-19
Join date : 2011-06-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Occultdude17 on 2012-01-08, 00:11

Potus-Mat wrote:At this point, it is little more than a thought experiment, but...
Create an artificial intelligence whose intelligence and processing speed far surpasses ours, and place it in a virtual copy of our world. The AI would have three drives: To gain perfect understanding of its world, to determine if it is being observed, and to communicate with its observers. Now, the AI would either do all of this, or realize its limitations and repeat the process, creating an AI with greater intellect and speed in a virtual reality inside of its own virtual reality. This process would continue until the the nth AI (AIn) has completed the first drive: perfect knowledge. Now, here I could say that we have proven God because we pretty much made a god, but that would be cheating. The nth AI will either detect the AI above it (AIn-1), meaning that detection of the divine is possible, or it will not, meaning that even the omniscient cannot perceive what is in a higher plane. Assuming the first, AIn will then proceed to the ultimate drive: communication with AIn-1. Again, it will either work, meaning communication with divinity is a possibility, or it will not, meaning it is not. AIn-1 will then take this data and recreate it, and so shall AIn-2, AIn-3, et cetera, until we can do so and see if there is a God.

The speed of any virtual machine would be limited by the processing power of the computer it exists on. AIn-1 would have to build AIn-2 on a separate computer, thus being aware that its reality was virtual. Then you encounter the problem that no AI can have complete understanding of the universe due to the fact that not every piece of information about the universe is on the AI's hard drive (most of it is radiating through space as heat). Trying to obtain all that information for complete understanding means we have to assemble every particle in the universe within the AI. This would probably create a black hole due to the concentration of mass in such a small size, so we'd need a computer the same size as the universe itself - and it would then have to process information about its processing in an ever-spiraling loop.

Even if you can wrap your head around all of that, the AI still can't have complete understanding of anything due to the Uncertainty Principle, which makes knowledge about certain different physical properties mutually exclusive. Bottom line, your experiment will not work.

And while the Uncertainty Principle does forbid a literally omniscient deity, it won't forbid one with practical omniscience, and thus still doesn't rule out God.
avatar
Occultdude17


Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Potus-Mat on 2012-01-08, 00:38

Halberdier wrote:That's not a true or possible experiment, and the answer would probably be 42.
Besides, any AI that we could knowingly make would be limited to "the logical," which is by default, removed from the possibility of interacting with any sort of god that we understand and describe, as he was already explained, a thing of faith.
If there is a God, surely he would be a logical being. Logic cannot come from Chaos. Or maybe it can. I am going to go ask the AI.
Halberdier wrote:Furthermore, it's unlikely that these life forms would repeat their experiment, because at a certain point, they would grow weary and realize that their creators existed (Us, or whatever AI preceded them) and figure out that their purpose there was to ponder or specify their purpose there.
Well then, they would have fulfilled the second drive, and we would learn that knowledge leads to apathy. Meh. I can take it or leave it.
avatar
Potus-Mat


Posts : 4412
Birthday : 1994-03-13
Join date : 2011-07-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Halberdier on 2012-01-08, 00:55

Not necessarily. I'd better explain that as, useless knowledge or knowledge of an absurd universe that is entailed through intelligent design leads to apathy. Funny how that works out.
avatar
Halberdier
€5,000,000,000
€5,000,000,000

Posts : 928
Birthday : 1995-01-19
Join date : 2011-06-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  DarkRiku on 2012-01-08, 04:03

I think you could agree with me on one thing.

For saying no God exist the human race sure do spend enough time trying to act like ones ourselves. Their is a fascination of if God can do it so can we so we can prove he isn't real.

We base God over our own logic as human beings. Have we ever tried to think of his logic on things? Our thoughts on good and evil, knowing and not knowing can be very different from his. Even if he did reveal himself their would always be skeptics. Jesus lived as a human and did all the miracles and people are still doubting to this day.

I think God sees the bigger picture on things that we just don't understand and still trying to figure out.

Make of this as you want.

avatar
DarkRiku
Keyblade Wielder
Keyblade Wielder

Posts : 1463
Birthday : 1984-12-06
Join date : 2011-08-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  nsanejokr on 2012-01-08, 05:10

DarkRiku wrote:I think you could agree with me on one thing.

For saying no God exist the human race sure do spend enough time trying to act like ones ourselves. Their is a fascination of if God can do it so can we so we can prove he isn't real.

Lol, I love how you're always trying to build opinions for us, when they aren't the ones we are actually holding.

Here's the thing: You're the one saying humanity is trying to play God and disprove him. You may perceive this as reality, but it just isn't.

At most humanity tries to always reach the boundaries of possibility. Sure they may be some that want to break the boundaries, but any logical person can see that this isn't possible. It's only those that try to break those boundaries who can be described as "playing God", because only a deity would have what it takes to break the rules of reality. Everyone else is just trying to figure out what's possible. Even if some possibilities feel extraordinary, they are not godlike as they don't defy reality.

To act like the goal to finding these possibilities is just to prove God doesn't exist is utterly silly. We as humans should explore into whatever is possible. Of course, a possibility would lead to the idea that a God isn't needed to make it happen, that is just a by-product of fully exploring existence since all the work goes towards learning what is possible.

We base God over our own logic as human beings. Have we ever tried to think of his logic on things? Our thoughts on good and evil, knowing and not knowing can be very different from his.

Well, for one thing, logic isn't, or at least shouldn't be, arbitrary to different types of beings. Whatever is considered most logical will be the standard, whether logic is being used by a deity or lesser being.

However, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that God could have a different breed of logic. In order to use God's logic we would have to actually be able to know how such logic even works. Since we don't, it's unusable. Human logic, therefore, is all we actually have and is the only logic we can actually use.

Still, for the sake of argument, let's say we were to actually use God's logic. Suppose we took his ideas on good and evil and apply them to our lives. We would instantly be obligated to go through all the prisons and let out all convicts, because all those people's incarcerations were decided under human justice which is established under human conceptions of good and evil and not God's. However, this would feel utterly silly in instances where something is clearly wrong, like murder.

This is not to be an argument to say human ideas our perfect; it's to say that they would be worthless if we adopted other ideas that another being had.

Even if he did reveal himself their would always be skeptics.

Sure, but if the reveal was irrefutable enough evidence then the so-called skeptics would be skeptical under illogical basis.

Jesus lived as a human and did all the miracles and people are still doubting to this day.

Yet, there has yet to be actual proof of these miracles except for what is claimed as proof under faith. So, since you believe accepting something under faith is logical, you must also think accepting these instances of faith is logical:

-Reincarnation is a real phenomenon, as Hindu faith shows it to be true.

-Thor is a real deity, as Norse mythology dictates such.

-The wizard Harry Potter actually exists and defeated Voldemort in a wizard duel, as the Harry Potter series dictates such and can be taken as depicting true events so long the reader has enough faith.

Of course, if you don't believe any of those statements to be true you would have to say those beliefs are illogical, since believing in non-factual ideas is illogical. You would then have to agree that accepting truth on faith is illogical, as that's what those statements ride on to be true. Therefore, you couldn't accept that believing in God's existence or Jesus' miracles to be logical, at least not if you're accepting these ideas on faith alone.




avatar
nsanejokr


Posts : 883
Birthday : 1990-09-20
Join date : 2011-07-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Halberdier on 2012-01-08, 07:01

That argument works MUCH more easily into the idea that God does everything that men (or men aspire to) do. In this, we can also see the reflections that the depicted god in the bible(s) exhibits a very human and flawed personality, often jealous, vengeful or spiteful.


Last edited by Halberdier on 2012-01-08, 21:05; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Halberdier
€5,000,000,000
€5,000,000,000

Posts : 928
Birthday : 1995-01-19
Join date : 2011-06-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  AndreS6 on 2012-01-08, 07:59

the only thing i know is : if you believe or not to God,the God will believe for ever in you.I am not a person who is every day in church but i believe in this sentence
avatar
AndreS6


Posts : 7
Join date : 2012-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  JDC on 2012-01-08, 08:21

One thing that logic is based on; what you do know, and what you don't. For someone who is omniscient, this will naturally be radically different to anyone with a finite amount storage space in their brain. If you know everything, you know precisely the full consequences of any (lack of action) from now, to any point in the future (which goes on forever). Naturally, someone using logic with omniscience on their side will behave VERY differently. Think of Chaos Theory with stuff like the Butterfly Effect, turned up to infinity, never mind 11. OFC, any 'chaos' would actually be order perceivable by someone with omniscience. Also, someone with omniscience will know the precise meaning of what is right/wrong, good and evil etc. Even if you were to use proper logic, omniscience changes it dramatically.

If God, from the Holy Bible, DOES exist, this would mean that there is some logical reason (for the greater good) for allowing/committing genocides, among other 'Evil' things, including personally invoking an apocalypse involving flooding Earth for 40 days/nights; along with allowing free will for people, instead of mind control, or people that just love God because they were programmed to. Without actually having omniscience ourselves, it's kind of difficult/impossible to make sense of how someone who is omnisicent will behave. For one thing, you'd need to be able to store infinite data, for obvious reasons (just knowing all the digits of the decimal expansion of an irrational number alone will require infinite memory), that is clearly impossible for humans. There is no way a human could possibly grasp how their actions would affect anything beyond perhaps the near future, an omniscient being would know precisely what effect any actions would have from the present to any point in the future, no matter how long the gap. This would mean humans pretty much have no chance of figuring out God's true motives behind everything he does, barring divine intervention from him.
avatar
JDC


Posts : 166
Join date : 2011-05-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Halberdier on 2012-01-08, 16:27

But you're ignoring omnipotent.
avatar
Halberdier
€5,000,000,000
€5,000,000,000

Posts : 928
Birthday : 1995-01-19
Join date : 2011-06-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Phraxure on 2012-01-08, 17:41

Halberdier, if God is "omnipotent", then why does he choose to allow the evil in this world to accumulate? If he was all powerful, surely he would stop it and place us in his ideal world.

Bad question to ask tbh seeing as you, or anyone else for that matter, cannot answer that question with the truth; only God can. Wouldn't really be fair for anyone to pose these sort of question to you.

Still, one thing that strikes me and always will is if God loves us all as much as I hear he does, then why does he still not welcome some individuals into heaven? Like if you're gay, then you're not welcome into heaven. I don't find that right.
avatar
Phraxure


Posts : 271
Birthday : 1997-05-25
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Halberdier on 2012-01-08, 18:39

You should read the thread. I don't think god exists, and I'm pointing out how this acceptance of god that JDC proposed isn't cogent with god being omnipotent, as he is detailed to be.
avatar
Halberdier
€5,000,000,000
€5,000,000,000

Posts : 928
Birthday : 1995-01-19
Join date : 2011-06-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Potus-Mat on 2012-01-08, 20:19

Phraxure wrote:Halberdier, if God is "omnipotent", then why does he choose to allow the evil in this world to accumulate? If he was all powerful, surely he would stop it and place us in his ideal world.
Bad question to ask tbh seeing as you, or anyone else for that matter, cannot answer that question with the truth; only God can. Wouldn't really be fair for anyone to pose these sort of question to you.
Still, one thing that strikes me and always will is if God loves us all as much as I hear he does, then why does he still not welcome some individuals into heaven? Like if you're gay, then you're not welcome into heaven. I don't find that right.
If you are speaking about YHWH, the way I see it, he is kinda like that kid you knew in high school that everyone liked, even though he treated a lot of people like crap. If you ask me, YHWH is an absolute *NOUN WITHHELD*.
avatar
Potus-Mat


Posts : 4412
Birthday : 1994-03-13
Join date : 2011-07-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Halberdier on 2012-01-08, 20:54

Halberdier wrote:That argument works MUCH more easily into the idea that God does everything that men (or men aspire to) do. In this, we can also see the reflections that the depicted god in the bible(s) exhibits a very human and flawed personality, often jealous, vengeful or spiteful.
avatar
Halberdier
€5,000,000,000
€5,000,000,000

Posts : 928
Birthday : 1995-01-19
Join date : 2011-06-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Occultdude17 on 2012-01-08, 21:24

I'm really struggling to follow your trains of thought, they're all so confusing and irrational.

Logic is logic. Fact is fact. Objective truth is objective truth. If two contradictory things are claiming to be true, then only one can be. "God's Logic" must agree with our logic, otherwise one is completely wrong.

The Problem of Evil is easily solved by claiming the following: God is a jerk.

Both omnipotence and omniscience are impossible even on their own, as they defy the laws of nature and logic. If any literally omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, then everything we know is wrong - including "I think therefore I am". Without foolproof logic, we cannot conclude our own existence from the fact that we are thinking. So either God is non-existent/limited in his power, or the entire world just went down the toilet... by which I mean it didn't, because logic doesn't work.

Don't you see how stupid things get when we abandon logic?
avatar
Occultdude17


Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Halberdier on 2012-01-09, 00:05

The problem of evil is not as simple as you say, because we also have to factor in that god is omnibenevolent.


That's why I had to post an essay I wrote. Twice.
avatar
Halberdier
€5,000,000,000
€5,000,000,000

Posts : 928
Birthday : 1995-01-19
Join date : 2011-06-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Occultdude17 on 2012-01-09, 00:34

Halberdier wrote:The problem of evil is not as simple as you say, because we also have to factor in that god is omnibenevolent.


That's why I had to post an essay I wrote. Twice.

It is that simple. My statement "God is a jerk" is simply a denial that he can be omnibenevolent, given the circumstantial evidence.
avatar
Occultdude17


Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  JDC on 2012-01-09, 11:16

What I'm saying is, if God exists, there must be some reason(s) for an omnipotent person (God) to allow stuff like evil to happen, and even commit 'Evil' acts, given that that person is also omniscient. If God exists, then he seems to value free will (as part of a grand master plan involving omniscience, at least), as even Adam and Eve had the capacity for sin before eating the forbidden fruit. I've never once seen or heard of God using mind control on anyone. As for me, there are some things in the bible that make sense, and some that make no sense whatsoever. A lot of the stuff in the Old Testament would be historical, and would take place in a VERY different world than the one we live in today.

Here's one thing in the bible that makes sense, even if taken out of the context of dealing with prophecies (which it may be in certain versions):

Thessalonians 5:21: "Test everything. Hold on to that which is good."

It's probably best to apply that to the rest of the Bible itself, among other things.

BTW, as far as logic is concerned, I'm making arguments of the form A->B (or 'A implies B', where A is God (in the Holy Bible) exists, and B are the arguments I'm making if A is true). Look up propositional logic if you need to, or stuff like basic truth tables. A->B means B is true if A is true, which can be rephrased to say If A is true, then B follows, which is how my arguments about God have been going. I never claimed that he existed btw.
avatar
JDC


Posts : 166
Join date : 2011-05-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Occultdude17 on 2012-01-09, 18:54

In Exodus, God hardens Pharaoh's heart so that he doesn't let the Israelites go, thus giving God an excuse to perform his miracles and demonstrate his power. God messes with Pharaoh's free will so that he makes the wrong choice, and then punishes him for it. That's not just an iron-clad case of mind control, it's an iron-clad case of Sick Bastard Syndrome.

The problem with making an "Assume A, therefore B" system is that, 1, A is inherently paradoxical, and 2, we start making excuses for God's SBS. There comes a point where we must either reject the idea of his omnibenevolence, or redefine our ideas of Good and Evil so that "Good" is whatever God says is good - even if that involves putting live kittens in a blender as a metaphor for the fate of Israel (not far-fetched, given some of the stuff the Old Testament Prophets did).

You're free to become a kitten killer if you'd like. I, on the other hand, shall simply reject God's omnibenevolence, as morality is entirely subjective and I consider animal abuse to be abominable. Seriously, give me eternal damnation because I'm not blending kittens.
avatar
Occultdude17


Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Amy Cool on 2012-01-09, 21:27

You are forgetting something. We, humans, have a short sight. We don't know things. We learn but we are limited with our minds.

Example: PC. Now, take a human 5000 years ago. As we today, he probably asked himself many questions and made some arguments what is right, what is wrong, etc. In other words what he knew in that time was for him the fact (Pythagorean theorem) and what he didn't, well he made some assuming as we all do, trying to understand things he doesn't know yet. That is how we move on and develop over the ages anyway. Could that human, somehow, describe how today's world will be? PC, making a whole virtual world with "simple" electronic components to be able to play some games etc, then making internet to connect whole world together with HD video links etc..... He couldn't even imagine that. Not to speak launching spaceships and so on. It is clear that he couldn't talk about computers and stuff when he did not know anything about it. Now, for the sake of example lets say God makes a book, a "PC magazine" and gives it to them over a prophet. It is not scientific, it covers some pc types, explains some games, goes through some internet stuff etc but nothing scientific. All simple stuff to us today. So a human 5000 years ago takes that magazine and tries to understand some humans racing a car in some screen that he sees more as some kind of picture rather than a machine to play games and surf. Facebook....more like some hieroglyphs than a social network. Then he reads about that stuff and he simply can't believe in it, he doesn't understand the sentence like "speak or see anyone all over the world from your house". For him thats something completely new and pretty impossible. But as humans have different minds, from things said on those articles some of them understand that the actual PC screen is not a picture but more some sort of portal to see people around the world. Of course, since they cannot prove anything of that to be true, there is always a group of humans that will tell like "those articles are just metaphors and mean nothing" "no portal is possible since science can't prove it" and "those articles are just written by regular humans to blind others so they can control them and get use of that".

Note: don't see this example as actual comparison with Holy Books and today with that time or so. It can be 10000 years ago and modified very much or whatever, I just wanted to give more global example to show how we are short minded and we only know things that we succeeded to fully understand-prove till the point we live in.

You can make statements in your own opinion about things you don't know much about, but you cannot use them as true since they lack knowledge. If you are about to assume how God is and judge things He does or that he doesn't exist at all then you do that in your own opinion.

I want to clear this because many of you non-believers here tell things as you are the ones who use facts and science and we believers are the ones who are blinded with Books relying only on faith not wanting to open our eyes and see the truth. Lets go back to my example there to see our believers side now. We believers are the ones who understood those metaphors about PC screen as some kind of portals to see and talk to other people over it and you are the ones that have science of that time showing you its not possible or not proved yet to be used as the real truth. To you, we believers are the ones who don't think rational, not using science and giving faith into some magical portals. To us, you are the ones who could not understand the magazine so well and happen to be stuck in the science of your time, not opening your eyes wider than your science allows you which will make you be wrong at the end.

So, using today's science and facts to tell us that we are the blinded ones just because science today is not able to prove God, makes you not even 1% better or smarter than us. In Einsteins time, some people considered him as crazy guy who didn't know what he was doing but today, many people consider him to be the greatest scientist of all time. Who knows, maybe in future he will actually be proved as a crazy guy with non working theory.

avatar
Amy Cool


Posts : 237
Join date : 2011-05-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Halberdier on 2012-01-09, 21:31

Occams Razor says no.
avatar
Halberdier
€5,000,000,000
€5,000,000,000

Posts : 928
Birthday : 1995-01-19
Join date : 2011-06-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Amy Cool on 2012-01-09, 22:07

Its just a principle which uses terms as generally and usually meaning it doesn't have to be the case but mostly it is.

Occams Razor is there to limit you in one point, not allowing you to go wider because you will complicate things as you don't have much knowledge in wider view.

God may be complex from your view or view of science we know today, but in some other view we don't understand now it may be much more simple than anything today.
avatar
Amy Cool


Posts : 237
Join date : 2011-05-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Occultdude17 on 2012-01-09, 22:15

Amy,

1, Don't use Einstein as an example unless you actually understand what he was talking about. It's tacky, fallacious and unoriginal.

2, Your argument seems to be along the lines of "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." However, that works both ways, as "Any sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from technology." This therefore implies that God can be understood by humans provided he is analysed.

3, In the process of analysing God, we will find that parts of his mythology are exaggerated or incorrect, just as PC screens are not portals. The biggest example of this, and the one religious people have the most difficulty accepting, is the Theory of Evolution. All of our physical evidence supports Evolution and disproves Creationism. If you want to know God, you've got to stop clinging to your PC portals.

4, Rationality still trumps Blind Faith because it provides new information. Rational people can learn, irrational people deny the possibility that their magazine shows screens and not portals. Even if God does exist, it is better to know that through reason than to know that by happening to follow the right religion out of many. If God exists, and can be understood, then the next step will be transcending him and that's when the faithful get left behind.
avatar
Occultdude17


Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Amy Cool on 2012-01-10, 04:04

1. I know very well what Einstein was talking about but thats not important. My point with Einstein was that many scientists who claimed something to be true, something humanity had not thought about or faced yet, at their start were mostly denied along with their theories because they didn't have the proof, then as they proved it with the science of their time, they were accepted. Then again after science came to new achievements, some of their theories were disproved. <- Final point, not everything you see today as scientific truth is the actual truth we are seeking for and thus you cannot only hold on science of this time, you must consider the global view too where we, with today's science can be right but also wrong.

2. My whole point of making an argument there was to show that your side can ALSO be wrong seen from global view but I never said that your side won't be the correct one at the end.

3 and 4.

1st, Theory of Evolution is not disproving Creationism. Seen from my religion even if Evolution is true it doesn't take out the possibility that even so, God could have created it. (Again, I call you to accept the fact that your point of view is not necessarily the right one)

2nd, one of the reasons why I am not accepting it is because its still a theory. Not even 100% proved with today's science, not to mention seeing it globally.

Now to show you more what I was talking about. When you say irrational people deny the possibility that their magazine shows screens and not portals is again just your own view on things. U have to take also as possibility this: irrational people deny the possibility that rational people's magazine shows portals and not screens. So you cannot take yourself as rational and me being irrational just because you think its like that. You must consider that you still can be the one who is irrational seen from global view. On the other side, I don't consider myself as being rational. I can be right or wrong, but I do BELIEVE that I'm right. I am aware of it and its different from forcing your own view to be the right one. Word believe actually implies "in my own opinion or point of view".

To explain you more, you tell that
Occultdude17 wrote: In the process of analysing God, we will find that parts of his mythology are exaggerated or incorrect, just as PC screens are not portals

Occultdude17 wrote: Even if God does exist, it is better to know that through reason than to know that by happening to follow the right religion out of many. If God exists, and can be understood, then the next step will be transcending him and that's when the faithful get left behind.

You do realize that all this is just your own opinion? It is not necessarily true. It is better according to you but according to me it is better to follow what i think is the right religion out of many. I can be wrong but also you can be wrong.

What if there is no next step after God? Have you given that as a possibility too? What if we cannot surpass Him as He is the final step, there is nothing greater than Him? When you assume then assume on both sides.

PC screens are not portals according to you. According to me, flow of data in PC is accomplished through ports on an electronic board. Then the data is transferred from one PC to another through wireless or wired ports. Data is captured by sensors (Microphone, Webcam etc) and converted to binary code, traveling through a port to another computer and then converted back to same data it was before and shown on PC screen. Because portal in magazine was a metaphor it could be that magazine actually referred to this.


Again, I'm not forcing my side to be the right, I'm just showing you that your side may not be necessarily the right one too. That is the whole point on my arguments. If we want to discuss, we can make argument on both sides. What we cannot is to tell which side is correct one. We simply lack knowledge to judge things. If we judge then we do it in our own opinions.
avatar
Amy Cool


Posts : 237
Join date : 2011-05-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Occultdude17 on 2012-01-10, 04:43

Amy,

1) Okay, if you understand Relativity then would you mind explaining it for the people out there who don't? I don't mind a wall of text, provided it's in your own words, but others might not appreciate it so stick it in a quote box or something.

2) I'm not acknowledging the "You can be wrong" argument until you've proven it also applies to you. List 3 things that would convince you God does not exist. What is your personal "standard for evidence" on this matter? If you can't entertain the possibility that you are wrong, then this will be incredibly one-sided.

3) I do not know how the Islamic creation myth goes, so I will go research it and then return to this point.

4) Nothing can be 100% proven, we can only prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Evolution has passed that test by a flippin' huge margin, so don't give me that "It's not valid until it's proven" point because it is B.S. Also, kindly educate yourself on the scientific definition of "theory", because I'm not explaining it to you a third time.

5) You can hide behind the word "opinion" all you like, it won't lend yours any more credibility. We can still tear it apart and point out all the flaws no matter how you dress the wounds.

6) If there is no step after God, then once we understand him we are gods ourselves. That's the difference between faith and reason. Faith requires you to submit to God, reason lets you understand what makes him tick.

7) I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you understood the meaning of the word "portal". It is not a port or a screen, or anything other than a flippin' wormhole between two different points in space and time. Just because they used the word metaphorically does not make it factually correct.
avatar
Occultdude17


Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Amy Cool on 2012-01-10, 09:26

I already stated that my point doesn't have to use Einstein and his Theory so I won't go further into that. If someone needs it, they can always google it.

No matter how many arguments I make you always end up making same argument over and over: "If I can't provide scientific evidence of what I am telling then I'm not right". And my whole point of discussion is "What makes your science be the right judgement?"


avatar
Amy Cool


Posts : 237
Join date : 2011-05-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  .:HadoukenBlue:. on 2012-01-10, 10:28

I don't believe anything until I've got undeniable proof.

so no.
avatar
.:HadoukenBlue:.


Posts : 364
Birthday : 1996-12-24
Join date : 2011-08-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Miror B. on 2012-01-10, 11:32

Ok, so what I've gathered from this mini argument and what I can say:

Evolution does not disprove Creationism, nor does Creationism disprove Evolution. Perhaps both happened :/

"Opinions" may be opinions but perhaps it's your opinion that what the other person thinks is just opinion.

It is my opinion that god exists. It is somebody else's opinion that he doesn't. So obviously this whole topic is worthless because opinions obviously can't be argued.

And @ understanding god, I don't feel we could at all. Doesn't mean we can't try. If I could understand the giant man in the clouds that I worship, even a little bit, wouldn't that make it easier to believe in him?

And the whole portal analogy was to say just because you see a screencap somebody else took doesn't mean it's true.

And if this is still just a battle of opinions then why do you have to point it out like you're still trying to win?
avatar
Miror B.


Posts : 1205
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  JDC on 2012-01-10, 11:47

By mind control, I mean actual magic, not something like intimidation, of which there seems to be PLENTY of in the Bible. 'Hardening someone's heart' might mean manipulation or influencing, without actual mind control magic.

One thing you can do with the arguments is to say, if B is contradictory, then not A, i.e. "God, The Almighty" does not exist. Now, in my opinion, under a lot of stuff that's true under the Bible, God's credibility is hanging by a tiny thread. Lots of acts that would be widely deemed evil by humanity (flooding the Earth, with the genocide, among other things, it entails, is the most extreme example I can think of), not to mention threats of eternal destruction and/or suffering (which I would have to believe to be God LYING on purpose in order to keep people on the straight and narrow), which I could NEVER see being justified for all of eternity, is what's driven God to the brink of vanishing in a puff of logic, as far as many humans are concerned. The only thing that stops this from being proven beyond a SHADOW of a doubt (bear in mind I'm referring to strict proofs in the sense that a pure mathematician would use them, and only something like that is acceptable here), is this: There may exist reason(s) for the greater good for this stuff actually being the RIGHT thing for God to do, that cannot be seen by people who are not omniscient, which would include reasons for genocide (just an example of the most extremely 'evil' act God has committed), among all the other things that make no sense to humans (mauling people who insult a prophet with bears, for example, not to mention many people will be disgusted at God allowing Satan to brutalize Job, even though he repaired the damage afterwards). Also, to me, God sacrificing Jesus to take the punishment for sin makes no sense to me whatsoever, that doesn't change the fact that other people committed sins, and that they should be held accountable. Again, this would be another thing filed in 'reasons unfathomable by humans, but not omniscient beings', IMO.

To summarise, all that's stopping God from vanishing in a puff of logic is that there is no definitive proof of not B. Basically, we are not omniscient, and that would be a requirement to get at God's reasons for doing stuff in the first place. Let's just say that if God DOES turn out to exist, he has a *LOT* of explaining to do for his actions when I get to meet him, because at that time, I won't accept anything less of a full explanation, and if that means I have to be made omniscient to understand (this will be the afterlife, or at the end of the world, obviously), then so be it. God WILL have to defend himself against all the accusations that can be levelled at him from evidence in the Bible that was written by people inspired by 'God The Holy Spirit'. A book, I might add, that God does NOT want changed. This is how the Bible supposedly came into existence (written by humans, inspired by God the Almighty via God the Holy Spirit), not to mention not stopping genuine evil/suffering when he has had chances to do so. Only God can defend himself against all of these accusations, because obviously humans won't have access to all the evidence (which is basically something that would be obtainable by omniscience). I will not be defending God's actions, because it's impossible to do so due to lack of information.

Finally, please do NOT suggest I would kill kittens, even in jest. I don't do abuse.
avatar
JDC


Posts : 166
Join date : 2011-05-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Amy Cool on 2012-01-10, 13:06

Miror B. wrote:Ok, so what I've gathered from this mini argument and what I can say:

Evolution does not disprove Creationism, nor does Creationism disprove Evolution. Perhaps both happened :/

"Opinions" may be opinions but perhaps it's your opinion that what the other person thinks is just opinion.

It is my opinion that god exists. It is somebody else's opinion that he doesn't. So obviously this whole topic is worthless because opinions obviously can't be argued.

And @ understanding god, I don't feel we could at all. Doesn't mean we can't try. If I could understand the giant man in the clouds that I worship, even a little bit, wouldn't that make it easier to believe in him?

And the whole portal analogy was to say just because you see a screencap somebody else took doesn't mean it's true.

And if this is still just a battle of opinions then why do you have to point it out like you're still trying to win?

Exactly, those are the conclusions. I'm glad that at least someone got what I was trying to say.

If you were referring to me with your last sentence, then I'll give you my reason for pointing it out like that.

Through all this thread we were discussing arguments on both sides. For me, it was pretty interesting since good arguments were made on both sides and no one forced their own opinions to be the actual truth. However, as the time passed many other people chained themselves to discussion and a tree of discussions was made. At some point, my arguments were all just denied by some of the non-believers saying that if I can't provide scientific evidence then its not true. This is why I needed to point all this out in order to remind them that they cannot simply use science of today as the ultimate truth, making their arguments as true since they can explain them with today's science and making mine and the arguments from other believers not valid because those arguments cover wider regions that science can approach today.

If they want to use science of today as their ultimate truth then they have to clarify that its the ultimate truth in their own opinion and not necessarily being right. This way we can share our opinions not forcing anyone's to be the right ones and this thread will gain its purpose back.

If they can't do that and want to force their truth as the one which is right then this topic has lost its purpose.
avatar
Amy Cool


Posts : 237
Join date : 2011-05-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Occultdude17 on 2012-01-10, 19:25

@ Amy

Science is right because it lets us accurately predict the results of X. Sometimes we get it wrong, but then we simply change our next prediction and explanation to match the outcome we got. We repeat this process indefinitely until we get it right. Either way, we get it right in the end.

Superstition is wrong because it does not make testable predictions or seek to explain X. Whatever it does predict is usually wrong and remains wrong because superstitious people do not change their beliefs to match reality.

In fact, it wouldn't matter if superstition was right 90% of the time and science only 10%, because science corrects itself until it's 100% right, while superstition never corrects its error and thus remains at 90%.

If you cannot understand this incredibly simple concept, then I pity you.


@ Miror B.

We can say with near-certainty that Genesis 1 - 11 is a myth. The world did not form in 7 days, is older than 6000 years, there was no Great Flood covering the entire world and we do not descend solely from one family living in a lost paradise somewhere. Every piece of physical evidence contradicts Biblical creation.

We obviously cannot rule out smaller floods or a more advanced species interfering with Earth's history, and we know for a fact that all humans share a common ancestor that lived 10,000 years ago (not the ONLY ancestor, just the most recent one we share). And while Physics suggests that the universe did not have a technical "origin" due to the merging of time and space at the Big Bang singularity, we do not know enough to conclusively rule out a cosmic creator.

If we suppose there is a creator, then they are connected to the universe by virtue of having made it. And given as our universe is built on logic, it follows that the creator should work the same way and be understandable. How can logic be caused by illogic?


@ JDC

You are right, God cannot be disproved. There are no criteria by which he could be. And there's stuff in the Bible far more disturbing than flooding the world. I shall post some video links at the end for you to look at.

I've stated this before, and I'll state it again: If "nice" Christians want to avoid the antisocial, immoral crap that the Bible contains, then they need to get a new Holy Book that's in line with their beliefs.

Video links:

Proof for an Evil God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbQQ6MSP7kw&feature=channel_video_title

Proof the Bible is Inappropriate for Children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwMyjKQ725E&feature=channel_video_title

Proof that Christianity is Screwed-Up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGkgmU9vG_o&feature=channel_video_title

Satire of Obnoxious Radical Creationists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs&feature=channel_video_title
avatar
Occultdude17


Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Halberdier on 2012-01-10, 20:49

Dear Amy Cool:

Science does not claim to be infallible. It welcomes people to try and disprove it and add to it, to complete its understanding. This is the scientific process, and when you use it, you hypothetically get to disprove Einstein more and more over time.

When you're using an antiquated holy book that relies on your suspension of belief that god works in ways to mysterious for you to bother with, you're not given the opportunity to use the scientific method.

If the fact that the scientific method is consistently disproving things that we previously found, is proof that there are things that we must depend on a holy book for, then you are not properly using any sort of scientific method to deduce that.
avatar
Halberdier
€5,000,000,000
€5,000,000,000

Posts : 928
Birthday : 1995-01-19
Join date : 2011-06-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  JDC on 2012-01-10, 21:12

I just read some of Genesis, and it seems like something so bizarre it defies description. Chapter 1 seems like it may contradict the Big Bang Theory, unless when God put the stars in place, he put together the Big Bang at some point when doing that, and made sure whatever was currently in our Solar System moved along with our galaxy, or something else. Anyway, I don't see anything in chapter 1 of Genesis that would definitively disprove the Big Bang Theory if it was all true. The flood was FAR longer than I thought. 40 days/nights was the amount of time water actually got added, and it took months, to a year, for the whole thing to end. Then there's stuff about animals giving an account to God (of their lives I think), so God is going to judge animals, and effectively EVERY LIVING CREATURE?! People are building a large tower, and when God comes down to check things out (he should already know what's going on anyway), he effectively goes 'Oh noes! People are doing really well with 1 language and so on, let's split them up and throw in lots of language barriers so they can't carry out whatever they plan.'. There's also a night-long wrestling match between God and Jacob, where God is obviously holding back, because he'd win no problem if he didn't, then he just touches Jacob in the hip and cripples him, then he goes on to reward him for struggling with him and humans. I swear, I could not make such stuff myself up even if I tried. I have a feeling the more I read Old Testament stuff, the less sense the Bible will make to me.
avatar
JDC


Posts : 166
Join date : 2011-05-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Occultdude17 on 2012-01-10, 21:33

Chapter 1 does conflict with the known history of the Solar System, by stating that the Earth and plants existed before the Sun. Chapter 2 then contradicts Chapter 1. It's basically somebody's failed attempt to plagiarise other mythologies.
avatar
Occultdude17


Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  JDC on 2012-01-10, 22:02

I'm currently going to try to look into time that passed since Genesis 1:1. So far, I've got about 6100 years once chapter 6 (The Great Flood) kicks in. There's the issue of where, and when, stuff like fossils came from. I tried to get further in Genesis, Abra(ha)m was born at about 6400 years in if I'm not mistaken, and it's really hard to keep track of time, but according to Matthew 1:1-17, there are 42 generations from Abra(ha)m to Jesus (which may have different lengths to today's, I haven't checked elsewhere in the bible yet, but people near the start of Genesis lived for centuries!). Obviously, once Jesus comes in, it's 1 A.D., then you just add about 2000 years on to that. So we have about 8400 years, plus time for 42 generations. It doesn't seem anywhere near the time you'd need for stuff like fossils.
avatar
JDC


Posts : 166
Join date : 2011-05-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Halberdier on 2012-01-11, 17:01



avatar
Halberdier
€5,000,000,000
€5,000,000,000

Posts : 928
Birthday : 1995-01-19
Join date : 2011-06-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  C/a/boose on 2012-01-15, 00:31

There isn't a way to prove that God exists, nor is there a way to prove that God does not exist.

I can't say I'm a believer, but I think that the existence of God is possible.

A lot of things are possible.
avatar
C/a/boose


Posts : 120
Birthday : 1991-09-08
Join date : 2012-01-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Heimdall on 2012-01-15, 00:47

To keep it short and simple, yes, I do believe in Him. And it's not because I heard and read so many amazing words from a preacher. I later decided on my own to do some research about the different religions (more like Christian sects), and decided Catholicism was best.

I could casually ask other people what I believe in, and if they don't believe in God, I'd ask them why but also not be a mule about it. :p
avatar
Heimdall


Posts : 188
Birthday : 1990-11-07
Join date : 2012-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Potus-Mat on 2012-01-15, 00:58

C/a/boose wrote:There isn't a way to prove that God exists, nor is there a way to prove that God does not exist.
Quitter.
Heimdall wrote:To keep it short and simple, yes, I do believe in Him. And it's not because I heard and read so many amazing words from a preacher. I later decided on my own to do some research about the different religions (more like Christian sects), and decided Catholicism was best.
I could casually ask other people what I believe in, and if they don't believe in God, I'd ask them why but also not be a mule about it. :p
Anyone else find it odd that an Aesir is Catholic?
See, I believe you made a flaw in your judgement. You say you researched other religions, but mainly Christian sects. That, in itself, shows bias towards a Christian religion, but I digress. I you merely look at religions, you can only choose, not reason. If you do not look at the world, at science, inside yourself, behind your ears, in your heart, at others, and between the couch cushions, you have simply done an act akin to taking a multiple choice test without knowing the material. If there is a God, it is not in a book, or in a preacher; it would be in the mind.
avatar
Potus-Mat


Posts : 4412
Birthday : 1994-03-13
Join date : 2011-07-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  C/a/boose on 2012-01-15, 01:02

Potus-Mat wrote:
C/a/boose wrote:There isn't a way to prove that God exists, nor is there a way to prove that God does not exist.
Quitter.

...what?


There is no definite way to prove either. Quitting has nothing to do with it.
avatar
C/a/boose


Posts : 120
Birthday : 1991-09-08
Join date : 2012-01-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Heimdall on 2012-01-15, 01:15

Potus-Mat wrote:
See, I believe you made a flaw in your judgement. You say you researched other religions, but mainly Christian sects. That, in itself, shows bias towards a Christian religion, but I digress. I you merely look at religions, you can only choose, not reason. If you do not look at the world, at science, inside yourself, behind your ears, in your heart, at others, and between the couch cushions, you have simply done an act akin to taking a multiple choice test without knowing the material. If there is a God, it is not in a book, or in a preacher; it would be in the mind.

Hey, Aesirs are fun Dx

I did do some basic research about other religions. They just weren't for me.

But you see, I HAVE looked at science. I loved lots of things about it as I was growing up, especially astronomy and the possibility of life on different planets. I don't just look at the Bible to see what's wrong and what's right. I love Catholicism because it encouraged me to be open-minded. If there's proof about dinosaurs and evolution (and I believe there's a lot of that Wink ) I won't deny it. Why? because I've always loved to learn, and I like it when that's not frowned upon. I can be myself where I currently am, thank you. Well, you know, without the sinning. hehe
avatar
Heimdall


Posts : 188
Birthday : 1990-11-07
Join date : 2012-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Potus-Mat on 2012-01-15, 01:17

C/a/boose wrote:
Potus-Mat wrote:
C/a/boose wrote:There isn't a way to prove that God exists, nor is there a way to prove that God does not exist.
Quitter.
...what?
There is no definite way to prove either. Quitting has nothing to do with it.
What evidence do you have to prove that God or lack of God are unprovable? We still have things to learn, and I bet my bottom dollar that divinity is one of them. Honestly, humanity's arrogance never ceases to amaze me; and this is coming from a guy who calls himself P.O.T.U.S.
Also, Aesir guy, you have gained some of my respect.
avatar
Potus-Mat


Posts : 4412
Birthday : 1994-03-13
Join date : 2011-07-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Badass_Bunny on 2012-01-15, 01:35

Proving that God exists or that God doesn't exist completely contradicts the whole point of a term called "God". Humans were given free will so that they might choose what to believe in, having proof of God Existing/Not Existing completely contradicts the point of "Faith"
avatar
Badass_Bunny
Smexy Duelist
Smexy Duelist

Posts : 2660
Birthday : 1996-04-17
Join date : 2011-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  calhoun1389 on 2012-01-15, 02:29

Badass_Bunny wrote:Proving that God exists or that God doesn't exist completely contradicts the whole point of a term called "God". Humans were given free will so that they might choose what to believe in, having proof of God Existing/Not Existing completely contradicts the point of "Faith"

If we're given the choice to worship him or not, then why should we be punished for all eternity if we chose to not give a crap about the whole thing? The bible is pretty much stating that God is trying to strong arm people into worshiping him by threatening us and killing those who chose a different idol. That doesn't sound like free will to me, instead it sounds like God is just acting like a bratty, spoiled rotten child who abuses his power any time he doesn't get what he wants yet pretends to not care by saying that everyone has the right to chose.
avatar
calhoun1389


Posts : 39
Birthday : 1989-11-13
Join date : 2011-11-09

View user profile http://madara-13.deviantart.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: God

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum