Tangents

Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
This is the general discussion thread for Medivh's Tower. Comments on any subject, responses to posts in other places around the forums, anything, is the purpose of this thread.

When a discussion in this thread reaches a certain size, a thread will be created for that subject. All future posts about that subject must go to the created thread. Whenever you respond to anything in any thread, your responses must be posted in only the thread where they are relevant.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
When will you all learn that I have comments on everything? -.-
The more you say, the more I must say.
Why should I care what makes them 'happy'?
Because people are the most dangerous thing around you. It would be wise to be wary of them.
Are you saying that you were born in a family that supports scientology and then suddenly decided to become christian? Because I think this is not the case.
I think you're so sure of your beliefs that you would deem an honest man a liar for telling the truth. Your beliefs cannot be wrong, after all.
Putting words in others' mouths again I see...
If stating that something that exists, exists, is putting words in someone's mouth, then I daresay English is far from your native language.
Being you does not mean you are necessarily telling the whole truth, knowingly or unknowingly.
Being unexpected does not mean it must be false. In fact, things unexpected are often true.
making up a crime, convicting someone of it, and then forgiving them of it is malevolent and megalomaniacal, not kind.
That why forgiveness usually comes without that punishment happening at all.
we have too many people in this world as it stands.
Then why does our population continue to increase, instead of seeing the hard statistics of a population reaching the carrying capacity?
If you're looking out for humankind, it's actually your duty to have two kids maximum, and preferably less.
Only if we have reached carrying capacity, which has yet to be established. Until then, "it's your duty" to have as many children with as many people so as to increase genetic diversity.
Freedom of speech is not unlimited. For example, take hate speech and slander.
I am not free to say I hate something? I can understand the harm in slander.

Arvedui later points to Wikipedia citing that the problem with hate speech lies in threats of imminent violence.
It was called the dark ages.
Newspaper headlines are terrible sources for names.
I don't want to get married with a big ceremony, nor in a church.
What about her? ;)
you can't expect to be able to just voice any opinion, even in a free society.
That's quite a jump from saying only threats of imminent violence and slander are exceptions to free speech.
The problem with religion is not that they have a belief, it's that they have an arbitrary belief which can be easily controlled by a few people and cause great harm in the process.
Rephrase or revoke.
Then stop saying I'm doing it and start showing I'm doing it.
Ehehehehehe...

Perhaps you should do the same for Elenai's analogies.
There is by definition no way to show the existence of a supernatural power through science.
To say God is supernatural, could easily prove false.
That's because ours is is in some way related to logic.
Everything is related to logic. Partly because illogical things do not exist. Probably because that would ruin physics.
How do you suggest I explain logic to someone who not only does not understand it, but is convinced their arguments are logical?
You know what's even harder? Explaining logic to someone who does understand is, and is convinced their argument is logical.

People learn a little and make like it's a big deal or they are actually knowledgeable...

Your job is a walk in the park by comparison.
Well, seeing as I have provided reasons for it which you have skirted rather than justified,
You should single-mindedly provide a single critical reason. Ask nothing else that would divert the topic, but focus on that single critical aspect, so there is no way that the response is anything but related to that one aspect.

If what you say is true, you should have that critical aspect already figured out.
When such a situation occurs, it's unlikely that the problem is everyone other than yourself.
When it occurs in conversation, it is unlikely that only one side is at fault.
How do you know God's will, and how do you know that it is morally right.
First, because everything is his will. Second, because he had the foresight to tell us. Assuming he exists.
And because he is described in this book, you believe everything you read in the same book?
Let me put it this way. God comes down from heaven and hands you a book. He tells you that everything in that book is true, and good things will happen if you do what is outlined in that book. Bad things tend to happen when you do things that that book says not to do.

You'd be a fool not to listen.

But God doesn't usually do that, I don't think. You must find some other reason to believe the book is from God. Once you earnestly believe it is from God, you would be a fool not to listen.
the guy's arguments now resides on "God says so".
Incidentally, God didn't speak about everything.
Alright, then you're using an inaccurate account, which is no better (in fact, you're apparently being knowingly ignorant, so it's worse).
Heh. Check this out. You're totally biased. In the example that he gave, someone was merely questioning whether or not the Jeff in the book was the real Jeff. There was absolutely, positively, no indication whether the Jeff in the book, or the Jeff the other guy talked about, was the real Jeff. You added the account in the book being false entirely on your own. Elenai's example gave no indication or implication of this being the case.

Furthermore, Elenai's example was made up on the spot for the specific purpose of making it ambiguous as to whether or not the Jeff in the book was the real Jeff.

Let's make it more clear. I have a book that defines the word glakmibfrob. Now somebody comes up to me and says, "What if glakmibfrob isn't really what that book says it is? What if it is something different?"

Can you see the analogy now? The book defines something. The guy in the example asks how you know that the definition is correct. Well, you know it is correct because it is a definition:
Wiktionary said:
To describe, explain, or make definite and clear.
He defines an original concept and you say:
you're using an inaccurate account
And no, his example was not an analogy for Jesus and the Bible. To think that it was that is by no means the fault of Elenai. No, the analogy was for God. God is God, not Bob. If it is Bob, then it is not God. God is one thing, and Bob is an entirely different thing. Elenai believes in the Bible. This gives him a definition of God. When you ask him how he knows God, the answer is simple. He knows God through the Bible, because God describes himself in the Bible.

You guys say what you want about Elenai's analogies, but when he presents one that is plain as day and you misread it, I'm sure as hell not blaming Elenai.
The thought of «choice» is quite archaic, in my point of view. People should start seeing it like it truly is.
The choice you will make is predestined, but we can't see the future, so it makes no difference. From our perspective, we can make whatever choices we want.
I like the human being for its rational part,
Isn't it neat? I also think emotion is awesome.
Don't you think that if there is a god, he would want you to be happy and go about living your day to day life with glee, as opposed to fitting into the norms of society?
If you kill someone God liked, what do you expect him to do?
 

Ash

Ash

Level 21
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
1,681
Ah, but if you killed someone god disliked, what do you then expect him to do? Religion is ironic: we are all placed as equals upon the Earth, yet the simplest of choices made by someone else have a massive effect on whether or not you are 'liked' by god. Take, for instance, Catholicism and Protestantism; they use the same books, talk about the same person and yet convey different messages.

Religion lies in the eye of the beholder; personally I do believe in a Supreme Being, however I don't believe that the way modern day religion portrays him to be is correct. After all, is there is a God -- note Christian spelling, however no bias is implied -- I'm sure he would want me to live a happy life, wouldn't you agree?

EDIT: woop woop, only just realised I'm actually in Mediv's Tower.
 

Rui

Rui

Level 39
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,478
(...)
The thought of «choice» is quite archaic, in my point of view. People should start seeing it like it truly is.
The choice you will make is predestined, but we can't see the future, so it makes no difference. From our perspective, we can make whatever choices we want.
Huh? Are you saying everything we do is already destined to happen? That is quite a deep topic, but I do not think everything is predestined.

By the way, in that paragraph you quoted I was still referring to Elenai saying homosexuals choose to love the individual of the same sex. I was just pointing out that the idea of «choice» is archaic in that regard – you are conditioned to the irrational part of your brain.
When you make a choice, you are limited to biological and psychological factors. A homosexual can't possibly choose to become sexually attracted to the opposite sex. His brain just doesn't work out that way.

{EDIT} Swapped paragraph positions.

Hakeem said:
I like the human being for its rational part,
Isn't it neat? I also think emotion is awesome.
(...)
Emotion is a pretty vast word, but I assume you were referring to the capability of making someone cry? =P

EDIT: By the way... it's going to be VERY confusing to be debating every matter of these in a single thread.
 
Last edited:
Level 40
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
10,532
That why forgiveness usually comes without that punishment happening at all.
Convicting someone does not necessitate punishment. The forgiveness is still wrong because the crime is baseless.

Then why does our population continue to increase, instead of seeing the hard statistics of a population reaching the carrying capacity?
Because of uneducated people in India and Africa (and somewhat in China, although the government got their ass in gear and started dealing with it) having so many kids that the population is moderated by starvation, and then some of those people emigrating to the west.

What about her? ;)
I don't know, and maybe it will happen. My point is that such a desire is not universal.

That's quite a jump from saying only threats of imminent violence and slander are exceptions to free speech.
No, it's just a repetition of it, with the descriptors implied as they had already been given once.

Rephrase or revoke.
Several people control a large amount of the religious (for example, the Pope with Catholics) and can take them quite a long way in whatever direction they want.

Ehehehehehe...

Perhaps you should do the same for Elenai's analogies.
I did.

Everything is related to logic. Partly because illogical things do not exist. Probably because that would ruin physics.
You know very well what he meant.

You know what's even harder? Explaining logic to someone who does understand is, and is convinced their argument is logical.

People learn a little and make like it's a big deal or they are actually knowledgeable...

Your job is a walk in the park by comparison.
Well, seeing as you have at no point attacked the validity of my arguments, I don't see what I'm supposed to respond with.

When it occurs in conversation, it is unlikely that only one side is at fault.
Not true. In communication, the one who does not communicate what they mean is the one who failed. There is no "right" in communication other than people understanding you (this does not follow in one-to-one conversation or similar, but when the vast majority of people within the relevant group read it and do not get that message from it, you have failed to communicate).

First, because everything is his will. Second, because he had the foresight to tell us. Assuming he exists.
That's a pretty huge assumption. Also, if everything is its will, it cannot exist as it is self-contradictory.

Heh. Check this out. You're totally biased. In the example that he gave, someone was merely questioning whether or not the Jeff in the book was the real Jeff. There was absolutely, positively, no indication whether the Jeff in the book, or the Jeff the other guy talked about, was the real Jeff. You added the account in the book being false entirely on your own. Elenai's example gave no indication or implication of this being the case.

Furthermore, Elenai's example was made up on the spot for the specific purpose of making it ambiguous as to whether or not the Jeff in the book was the real Jeff.

Let's make it more clear. I have a book that defines the word glakmibfrob. Now somebody comes up to me and says, "What if glakmibfrob isn't really what that book says it is? What if it is something different?"
My point is that he is not attempting to discern whether the book has validity, only assuming that the god it mentions must be the One True God™. I know exactly what he was trying to say.

And no, his example was not an analogy for Jesus and the Bible. To think that it was that is by no means the fault of Elenai. No, the analogy was for God. God is God, not Bob. If it is Bob, then it is not God. God is one thing, and Bob is an entirely different thing. Elenai believes in the Bible. This gives him a definition of God. When you ask him how he knows God, the answer is simple. He knows God through the Bible, because God describes himself in the Bible.
Exactly. He follows the book without justifying it—he just "justifies" where he got his ideas of a god from.

You guys say what you want about Elenai's analogies, but when he presents one that is plain as day and you misread it, I'm sure as hell not blaming Elenai.
Or did you misread our response?
 
Level 14
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
956
I think you're so sure of your beliefs that you would deem an honest man a liar for telling the truth. Your beliefs cannot be wrong, after all.

That was a highly sarcastic comment against Elenai for reassuring everyone that he chose being christian for himself... while I'm quite sure that he is christian because his family is christian, and he would probably have been buddhist if his family was buddhist, or orthodox, or islamic, etc. And I am basing this on the fact that most religious people are born from religious families, and follow the religion that is followed by their parents.

If stating that something that exists, exists, is putting words in someone's mouth, then I daresay English is far from your native language.

Nope, English is not my native language. And?
This was copy-pasted from Elenai's post and slightly modified to put enfasis on the fact that he was protesting against people that supposedly "put words into his mouth" when in reality they were doing the same thing that he did in his post, and for what you are criticising me now: saying what has been said already, but in a different way. In a more blunt, direct and possibly offensive way.
 
Level 23
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,565
Hakeem, most of your arguments relating to god are assuming he exists. That's kind of an issue.

Hakeem said:
First, because everything is his will.

So then why do gays even exist, if he hates them so much.

Also, then: find me where it (the bible) says God hates gays.

Hakeem said:
Everything is related to logic. Partly because illogical things do not exist. Probably because that would ruin physics.

This would seem to assert that God doesn't exist. First, he seems illogical.

Second, a truly omnipotent god is defined as being able to ignore logic.

Hakeem said:
No, the analogy was for God. God is God, not Bob. If it is Bob, then it is not God. God is one thing, and Bob is an entirely different thing. Elenai believes in the Bible. This gives him a definition of God. When you ask him how he knows God, the answer is simple. He knows God through the Bible, because God describes himself in the Bible.

So he believes in God, because he believes in God? Think about it.

Hakeem said:
Because people are the most dangerous thing around you. It would be wise to be wary of them.

Response doesn't really justify an answer. I'm not worried that the religious people I might insult by questioning their beliefs are going to do harm to me.
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,869
Not sure if this is really on-topic.

I've gone through a lot of doubt about God. There are basically a few things that have led me to believe that there is one.

1. When I look at the world around me, I have hard time believing it was created at random. Take something like the human body. Even with our advanced technology today, we can't come close to recreating anything like the human body. It just seems obvious that there is intelligent design behind the world. What form of existence that intelligence is in, is much more debatable.

2. The closer I've been to God (the more I pray, and do his will), the happier I am. This is entirely subjective, and perhaps has no place being mentioned here, but it's probably one of the strongest pulls towards my faith. If I didn't get this feeling, I'd probably not take part in organized religion, and simply believe that there is some creator out there.

3. There seems an inherent belief of God instilled in Humans. We've almost always had God(s) throughout history. Seems like there might be a good reason for this. I suppose it could be a lack of answers about life, or perhaps our creator has put a subconscious knowledge of him in us.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
I'm sure he would want me to live a happy life, wouldn't you agree?
Yes. I'm just pointing out that just because he wants you to live a happy life doesn't mean he wants you to commit murder if you really want to.
When you make a choice, you are limited to biological and psychological factors. A homosexual can't possibly choose to become sexually attracted to the opposite sex. His brain just doesn't work out that way.
I don't think this is true. I don't know as to how well this can be debated, but I'd cite myself as evidence. By the logical facilities of my brain, I am able to overcome my biological nature. Our logical abilities can overwhelm our instincts, in certain circumstances.
By the way... it's going to be VERY confusing to be debating every matter of these in a single thread.
That's why we split thing into specific subject threads.
The forgiveness is still wrong because the crime is baseless.
In the cases where the crime is baseless, yes.

Yes, I pretty much just agreed with you and reiterated what you said, but in doing so I demonstrate the truth value of the "made up" crimes being baseless. That is to say, the "made up" crimes may or may not be baseless.

You've brought up valid logic, but you have not demonstrated that there is a case where this logic is used. You haven't provided arguments for one of these "made up" crimes being baseless.
Because of uneducated people in India and Africa (and somewhat in China, although the government got their ass in gear and started dealing with it) having so many kids that the population is moderated by starvation, and then some of those people emigrating to the west.
That describes why the population is still increasing. It does not tell me how we have reached carrying capacity but do not show the hard statistics of a population that reaches carrying capacity.
No, it's just a repetition of it, with the descriptors implied as they had already been given once.
Give an example of an opinion that is slanderous or an imminent threat of danger.
Several people control a large amount of the religious (for example, the Pope with Catholics) and can take them quite a long way in whatever direction they want.
Clarification: This is not a problem with "religion." Rephrased statement accepted.
I think I would have noticed an in-depth analysis of one of Elenai's analogies. If I managed to miss it, please provide me the link. I'd love to see exactly why Elenai's analogies are "bad."
You know very well what he meant.
Yes. He meant that Elenai's opinions were not related in any way to logic, which is impossible. There is a reason for everything.
if everything is its will, it cannot exist as it is self-contradictory.
How so?
My point is that he is not attempting to discern whether the book has validity,
You certainly did not make that clear with your words. You also made an assumption that you could not make:
you're using an inaccurate account,
Whether or not the account was inaccurate was specifically removed from the analogy. You assume the account was inaccurate without any reason. Yes, in the analogy, no attempt is made to discern what is correct. You did, however, assume the book was incorrect.
Exactly. He follows the book without justifying it
Yes. Yes, indeed, he does. This does not mean there is no justification. I believe he previously refused to reveal exactly why he believes the Bible is correct.
Or did you misread our response?
Always a possibility, but I'm not changing your meaning by cropping to the above quote. You totally assumed a character in a hypothetical scenario to be using a hypothetical source that was hypothetically false. The hypothetical scenario was created with the specific purpose of making the hypothetical truth value of the hypothetical source undefined. For you to define that completely hypothetical source as false, is to entirely ignore the purpose of the hypothetical scenario.
That was a highly sarcastic comment against Elenai for reassuring everyone that he chose being christian for himself... while I'm quite sure that he is christian because his family is christian, and he would probably have been buddhist if his family was buddhist, or orthodox, or islamic, etc. And I am basing this on the fact that most religious people are born from religious families, and follow the religion that is followed by their parents.
Yeah. He tells you he chose Christianity of his own free will, not because of his parents, and you don't believe him.

My parents are Muslims. I am a Muslim. I shouldn't have any reason to believe people will choose their own paths despite their parents, because I chose the "same" path as my parents. I have no personal evidence that people will choose religions differing from their parents religions, and yet, I think it's entirely plausible.
Nope, English is not my native language. And?
It means I have little faith in your ability to discern what it means to put words in someone's mouth.
most of your arguments relating to god are assuming he exists. That's kind of an issue.
How are we supposed to talk about God without assuming he exists?

"If God exists, then... Oh wait, we don't agree on that. I guess that there is no possible way I can be making any kind of point."
So then why do gays even exist, if he hates them so much.

Also, then: find me where it (the bible) says God hates gays.
I'd like to point out that I can not personally defend the Bible.
This would seem to assert that God doesn't exist. First, he seems illogical.
I do not see the logic impossibility of the God I believe in. Please explain something you perceive to be illogical.
Second, a truly omnipotent god is defined as being able to ignore logic.
Not necessarily. To think so is a rather poor view of the meaning of omnipotence.
So he believes in God, because he believes in God? Think about it.
No. He believes in God for some reason. Possibly because he believes in the Bible, and the Bible says there is a God.

Additionally, the quoted text you provided did not state or imply why Elenai believes in God. It stated how he knows things about God.
I'm not worried that the religious people I might insult by questioning their beliefs are going to do harm to me.
I meant people in general. If there is one animal that is most willing and able to kill you, it's a human.
Not sure if this is really on-topic.
Everything is on-topic, in this thread.
 
Level 33
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
So then why do gays even exist, if he hates them so much.

Also, then: find me where it (the bible) says God hates gays.

Love the sinner, hate the sin:

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:

Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Deuteronomy 23:17, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

Genesis 19:4-12 (Sodom and Gomorrah)

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

(The men of Sodom came to Lot's house and ordered Lot to bring out his two guests, so that they may 'know them')

http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/know someone biblically (to know somone = to have sex with)

1 Kings 14:24, "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel."

1 Kings 15:11-12, "And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."

Isaiah 3:9, "The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves."

Romans 1:26-32, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

_________________________________________________________________

1 Corinthians 6:9-11, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

1 Timothy 1:9-10, "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

1 Corinthians 6:9-11, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Effeminate = what we would call a transvestite.

"Abusers of themselves with mankind / that defile themselves with mankind" = fornication in general, prostitution, and men who defile themselves with men (women in reverse).

_________________________________________________________________

God does not hate a homosexual, or a drunkard, or a thief, or a pimp, prostitute, kidnapper, or a murderer.

But he does hate the sins they have committed in doing these things.

Christ ate with all manner of sinners, and forgave them of said sins. A prostitute cried at his feet, and so too did other sexual offenders.

This is not 'hate' of the person, but forgiveness of actions and lifestyles that are not pleasing to God.

This would seem to assert that God doesn't exist. First, he seems illogical.

It seems illogical that there is a duck billed, webbed footed, poisonous, beaver, living on an island continent that is mostly brushy desert.

It seems illogical that there is a legless reptile, that can unhinge it's jaw at will, and swallow whole, digest, and survive on, a single creature, filled with bone, hair, and teeth, and muscle, once month, or more. And not only is this reptile legless, completely flexible, and cunning. It has poisonous fangs, and never blinks.

It seems illogical that there is a cold blooded animal, that lives in near complete darkness, that has insanely sharp teeth, is viciously bony looking, and has an organ sticking out of its forehead, that creates illumination.

It also seems illogical that a group of hind legged, lizard hipped, dromaeosauridae, could evolve a wing structure with complex, elongated scales, capable of letting them create enough thrust on their own muscular power to lift into the sky to travel vast distances across oceans, plains, and at higher altitudes with less oxygen, on a diet mostly comprised of nectar, or sugar water.

It also seems illogical, that the entirety of the universe was at one point, a tiny spec of hyper condensed matter no bigger than an atom.

It also seems illogical, that there exists in the world, a ten thousand pound mammal, that has a prehensile, and articulate nose, that even despite its own vast, and massive weight, and cumbersome nature, can pick up the most delicate flower, without crushing it...with its nose.

It also seems illogical that in an environment of 400°C, pitch blackness, and high salt content, bacterium, no bigger than 1/100th of the size of a needle tip, can not only survive, but thrive, and become the base ecosystem that is just as diverse, as the average verdant forest, and not only that, said organisms exhibit colour, and in varying forms, and complexities.

It seems illogical, to think that these tiny, insignificant, and what should have died on the spot...organisms, can not only survive in this super hot, super dark, super salty environment, at high pressure depths. But thrive enough, and thrive for so long, that they are one of the major hypothesis, for being the root organisms for all of evolved life.

It seems illogical, that life could appear on a planet, that was at one point, no better a place than the surface of Mercury.

It seems illogical, that a race of apoid creatures could make an appearance on a planet that has gone through about 10,000 different global disasters, and survive long enough to build a civilization, capable of choking the planet to death with CO2 emmissions, in the span of their industrialized civilization of only 300 approx years.

Alot of things 'seem' illogical, but...here they are. I find it a lovely idea, to believe indeed that God is also just as logical, and that these miracles of life, these 'illogical' things, came about by the carving hand of a logical god.

Second, a truly omnipotent god is defined as being able to ignore logic.

That doesn't mean he has too ;)

Miracles are wonderful things.

The "miracle" of the hypothermic vent ecosystem, is also a wonderful thing.

So he believes in God, because he believes in God? Think about it.

I believe in God, because I have studied the world, and determined that there is a god. And in determining that there is a god, set out to find out who he is. I discovered that of all the faiths, Christianity answers the questions in full, and with the most reason. And in choosing God, I have discovered that my choice was indeed 'correct', as it has yet to fail me.

I believe in the God of the Bible, because the God of the Bible is the God that makes the most sense, and the Bible is the only legitimate source that described this god, a god that I believed to be out there, after looking at the world.

(this isn't ALL there was to it, but you get the point, it isn't through circular logic that I believe in God, it was through deductive reasoning.)
 
Level 23
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,565
'kay El. The bible certainly does not cast a positive light on gays.

Gilles said:
It just seems obvious that there is intelligent design behind the world.

I'm afraid that that is a massive failing in your argument, and in fact not an argument at all. Simply saying that "it just seems obvious" does not construe a point.

Gilles said:
The closer I've been to God (the more I pray, and do his will), the happier I am.

That is an entirley legitimate point, and is indeed a reason to believe in god. Dieties certainly do have a social and emotional role, and indeed a powerful one.

Gilles said:
There seems an inherent belief of God instilled in Humans. We've almost always had God(s) throughout history. Seems like there might be a good reason for this.

As I said above, having a diety certainly does provide both social benefiets and disadvantages. There are various pressures that will convince certain societys to have different types of Gods. God's remove personal blame from someone, and often give them hope of life after death, 'encouraging' them to behave in this life.

Hakeem said:
How are we supposed to talk about God without assuming he exists?

I'm more to things like this:
Second, because he had the foresight to tell us. Assuming he exists.

We know this book is from God, because he told us. We know that God exists, because of this book.

Hakeem said:
God comes down from heaven and hands you a book. He tells you that everything in that book is true, and good things will happen if you do what is outlined in that book. Bad things tend to happen when you do things that that book says not to do.

Re-addressing this point. If I personally believed that many of the things contained in this book were immoral, then I would still not do them.

Hakeem said:
Not necessarily. To think so is a rather poor view of the meaning of omnipotence.

To think so would be the correct meaning of the omnipotent. All + power. To be 'all' powerful, one must be above logic.

If we take the what is the classical failing of omnipotentce. "Can x make a weight heavier that he can lift?". Yes, God can. But then he can lift it.

He is no longer constrained by the logical rules.



El, as to your 'seems' illogical thing. None of those seem illogical or miraculous to me. My initial wording to Hakeem was pretty bad.

But: when we have no proof of God's existence except that it: 'just seems obvious' (Sorry Gilles), it would seem illogical to believe in him.

Elenia said:
I believe in God, because I have studied the world, and determined that there is a god.

What things made, you determine this? Simply saying you have isn't enough for me. I want details. :)
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,869
I'm afraid that that is a massive failing in your argument, and in fact not an argument at all. Simply saying that "it just seems obvious" does not construe a point.
I'm not sure I see why that is.
Would it be better if I said it seems only reasonable that there is intelligent design, and as I said, unreasonable that it is all random? Remember that when talking about God, you cannot prove God using science, and cannot disprove him using science.
 
Level 33
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
What things made, you determine this? Simply saying you have isn't enough for me. I want details. :)

To really understand 'why' you would need to be inside the head of an artist so to speak, or have the mind of one. There are alot of things that are 'apparent' to me, without being fully said, or described, "mental cognition, and perception, without a connection in the primary senses" I suppose. A non-vocal response in the brain, not 'psychic' to clarify.

I looked at the world, and I saw 'art', I looked at how things played on each other, how ecosystems worked, and how things are born, and die, and the other things in life (that at the time I was looking at, and learning about as a curious kid. Thank you PBS :D)

I was naturally like all kids, curious, though in a nerdy way...It began with 'dinosaurs' for biology, 'egypt, and knights' for history, and other manners of subjects like religion and cultures. I looked at all of it, even if I've forgotten some things.

From this, as I grew, I began to wonder not just 'hey neat, how does that work?' but 'hey neat, how did it get here?'.

Then I began to look. And over time things began to fold together rather neatly, and I then said what I was perceiving (I was old enough to decide essentially), "Someone must have made this, and I mean, 'really made it', not just 'yeah, someone made it, blah blah, back to life'". So I kept fine tuning what I had always been researching before.

Long story short: I went from general ideas, and general trivia, and I took pieces out of it and looked it up as best as I could at the time, and then kept doing it until I became pretty well assured of what would become 'the existence of a god', and then decided it was Christianity that held the most reasonable description of God after looking at the varying faiths.


This was the academic side of that choice.

I've also had life experiences that sealed that choice, what most people would call blessings, and miracles...but I'd rather not get into those for the obvious reasons. (they tend to be vehemently dismissed as 'coincidence', or 'science/biology did something that we just don't know about yet')
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,869
Again.

I do not need to prove. I only need to know there is no evidence in God.

It's how science works, in part.
There is evidence of God, which I was just talking about.

JP2 said:
"2. In speaking of the existence of God we should underline that we are not speaking of proofs in the sense implied by the experimental sciences. Scientific proofs in the modern sense of the word are valid only for things perceptible to the senses since it is only on such things that scientific instruments of investigation can be used. To desire a scientific proof of God would be equivalent to lowering God to the level of the beings of our world, and we would therefore be mistaken methodologically in regard to what God is. Science must recognize its limits and its inabi]ity to reach the existence of God: it can neither affirm nor deny his existence.

From this, however, we must not draw the conclusion that scientists in their scientific studies are unable to find valid reasons for admitting the existence of God. If science as such cannot reach God, the scientist who has an intelligence the object of which is not limited to things of sense perception, can discover in the world reasons for affirming a Being which surpasses it. Many scientists have made and are making this discovery.

He who reflects with an open mind on what is implied in the existence of the universe, cannot help but pose the question of the problem of the origin. Instinctively, when we witness certain happenings, we ask ourselves what caused them.How can we not but ask the same question in regard to the sum total of beings and phenomena which we discover in the world?

A supreme Cause"
 
Level 23
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,565
the scientist who has an intelligence the object of which is not limited to things of sense perception,

Is no longer a scientist.

I'd just like to repeat that the "it just seems obvious" argument/evidence, is not in fact either of those. It's purley an opinoin.

I do not think that it seems obvious that a God had to create all of this. When I ask myself the question of the origin of beings and phenomina, I may not be entirley sure of the answer. There are theories, with far more support than the existence of God though.

El, there really isn't anything I can do to argue against that.

But as to:

It seems illogical that there is a duck billed, webbed footed, poisonous, beaver, living on an island continent that is mostly brushy desert.

It seems illogical that there is a legless reptile, that can unhinge it's jaw at will, and swallow whole, digest, and survive on, a single creature, filled with bone, hair, and teeth, and muscle, once month, or more. And not only is this reptile legless, completely flexible, and cunning. It has poisonous fangs, and never blinks.

It seems illogical that there is a cold blooded animal, that lives in near complete darkness, that has insanely sharp teeth, is viciously bony looking, and has an organ sticking out of its forehead, that creates illumination.

It also seems illogical that a group of hind legged, lizard hipped, dromaeosauridae, could evolve a wing structure with complex, elongated scales, capable of letting them create enough thrust on their own muscular power to lift into the sky to travel vast distances across oceans, plains, and at higher altitudes with less oxygen, on a diet mostly comprised of nectar, or sugar water.

It also seems illogical, that the entirety of the universe was at one point, a tiny spec of hyper condensed matter no bigger than an atom.

It also seems illogical, that there exists in the world, a ten thousand pound mammal, that has a prehensile, and articulate nose, that even despite its own vast, and massive weight, and cumbersome nature, can pick up the most delicate flower, without crushing it...with its nose.

It also seems illogical that in an environment of 400°C, pitch blackness, and high salt content, bacterium, no bigger than 1/100th of the size of a needle tip, can not only survive, but thrive, and become the base ecosystem that is just as diverse, as the average verdant forest, and not only that, said organisms exhibit colour, and in varying forms, and complexities.

It seems illogical, to think that these tiny, insignificant, and what should have died on the spot...organisms, can not only survive in this super hot, super dark, super salty environment, at high pressure depths. But thrive enough, and thrive for so long, that they are one of the major hypothesis, for being the root organisms for all of evolved life.

It seems illogical, that life could appear on a planet, that was at one point, no better a place than the surface of Mercury.

It seems illogical, that a race of apoid creatures could make an appearance on a planet that has gone through about 10,000 different global disasters, and survive long enough to build a civilization, capable of choking the planet to death with CO2 emmissions, in the span of their industrialized civilization of only 300 approx years.

This does nor prove that God exists. It suggests that Darwin was right.
 
Level 33
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
This does nor prove that God exists. It suggests that Darwin was right.

My question to you would be: Is God not able to be a sculptor, that he cannot work with evolution as a chisel, and still be the creator?

But more on topic: These were merely examples of things that 'seem illogical', that do indeed exist. And that God may seem illogical, but it is indeed possible that he does exist, as I believe.
 
Level 33
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
It is in the possibility of his existence/lack there of, that faith for either end of the spectrum comes in.

Evidence goes either way, it is faith that seals the deal.

To summarize. I believe the evidence points to God's existence, more so than his non, and I have faith that my decision is correct.
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,869
I do not think that it seems obvious that a God had to create all of this. When I ask myself the question of the origin of beings and phenomina, I may not be entirley sure of the answer. There are theories, with far more support than the existence of God though.
Such as?
 
Level 21
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
3,699
My question to you would be: Is God not able to be a sculptor, that he cannot work with evolution as a chisel, and still be the creator?

Why would God spend billions of years when he could do it in 7 days? Why would God let evolution get out of hand like this? Why are we the only beings that even perform rituals to a divine being, does it make us the ultimate result of evolution? What's the purpose of evolution, if it is divine? Why is evolution uncontrolled in the very definition of it, when it is supposedly a "tool"?

There's a larger chance the Earth is only 10 000 years old than that evolution would be a tool of God... And I'll leave it up to you to decide if the Earth is 10 000 years old or not.

P.s. those are hypothetical questions, I don't expect you to quote each one of them

Exactly, it's still not the first cause.
Infinity, whether in time or space, cannot be perceived by human beings. So whether God caused the big bang or not, because it's unperceivable to us in the first place the "first cause" does not mean it's got to be God.

Evidence goes either way, it is faith that seals the deal.
I disagree. Religion and beliefs have to stay away from science. Believe in something after life if you wish, but don't think of science or evolution as God's tools because from a scientific point of view it doesn't make sense.
 
Level 33
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
P.s. those are hypothetical questions, I don't expect you to quote each one of them

Too bad, I'll answer them anyway. :p

Why would God spend billions of years when he could do it in 7 days?

Genesis, like Revelation: Is written in a symbolic-language way of explaining literal events.

I believe God let us discover the 'how', but has already explained the 'why'.

Why would God let evolution get out of hand like this?

Elaborate.

Why are we the only beings that even perform rituals to a divine being, does it make us the ultimate result of evolution?

At the risk of sounding like a Trekkie: "Are we alone?"

What's the purpose of evolution, if it is divine?

Creation of course.

Why is evolution uncontrolled in the very definition of it, when it is supposedly a "tool"?

It perhaps seems uncontrolled, but God works in mysterious ways, and to me evolution seems pretty guided.

As I explained once when I was talking to Teh_Ephy about this:

"The chips of a sculptor seem random and careless at first, but through time the marble block takes shape, and what seemed random at first, comes to find out that it was quite purposeful, and full of intent."

There's a larger chance the Earth is only 10 000 years old than that evolution would be a tool of God... And I'll leave it up to you to decide if the Earth is 10 000 years old or not.

YEC, or OEC, which ever one comes out to be true is of little consequence in the broader reason of God's creative purpose.

____________

The prime mover argument is refuted by the phrase "infinite regression".

http://alrenous.blogspot.com/2009/05/infinite-regression-versus-causality.html

Daddy, where do atoms come from?

There must at some point be some form of cause for an effect to happen. Ripples don't happen by themselves so to speak.

But much like 'atoms' there has to be a point in which this infinite regression of causes has to stop, because at some point, you can't break down the parts into more basic parts anymore. They become what they are, 'just because'.

We don't know what exactly what started the big bang at that instant, but that does not make "goddidit" an acceptable answer.

If that is the answer, then that is the answer. Whether you find it acceptable or not.

(not that I'm saying it 'is' the answer, for as much as I believe it is: for the sake of argument: If it is the answer...then it is. If not...oh well, we've got to look elsewhere, but 'acceptability' is not a determining factor on 'correctness' is what I am saying)
 
Level 40
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
10,532
But much like 'atoms' there has to be a point in which this infinite regression of causes has to stop, because at some point, you can't break down the parts into more basic parts anymore. They become what they are, 'just because'.
Atoms are not elementary; nor are protons and neutrons. Also, not only does there not need to be a point at which infinite regression stops, but if there is it does not have to be a supernatural force.

If that is the answer, then that is the answer. Whether you find it acceptable or not.
Until you can back it up, it's a useless answer that is worth only contempt.

Gravity may exist because little green leprechauns are pulling us down so we don't float away, but that isn't an acceptable explanation as it isn't backed up.
 
Level 33
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
Atoms are not elementary; nor are protons and neutrons.

Reiteration: Activated:

"Daddy, Where do atoms come from?"

Also, not only does there not need to be a point at which infinite regression stops, but if there is it does not have to be a supernatural force.

So? Just because it might not be 'needed' doesn't mean it might not be 'there'.

Until you can back it up, it's a useless answer that is worth only contempt.

Contempt or not: If the right answer is the right answer, then it is the right answer, evidence or not.

Gravity may exist because little green leprechauns are pulling us down so we don't float away, but that isn't an acceptable explanation as it isn't backed up.

It doesn't matter if it is acceptable or not, if said leprechauns are indeed pulling us down.

If there were leprechauns holding us down: IE they were the force behind gravity, then they would be the force behind gravity, and not mass, or w/e.

Mass, and w/e might be more 'acceptable', but if it isn't right, then it isn't right, it doesn't matter who you are, or what you say is acceptable.
 
Level 40
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
10,532
We are not talking about what is necessarily true, as no one knows nor can know.

We are debating what is true based on what we observe. If you are debating otherwise, then you may as well just stop it now because it is useless and cannot possibly get anywhere, even barring personal bias.

Therefore, unsupported ideas/hypotheses are useless and not worth consideration.

How hard is it to understand?
 
Level 33
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
We are not talking about what is necessarily true, as no one knows nor can know.

Then what is the point?

We are debating what is true based on what we observe. If you are debating otherwise, then you may as well just stop it now because it is useless and cannot possibly get anywhere, even barring personal bias.

I am debating what I've observed. Even still, you can't force me out of the debate either, much less by anger.

How hard is it to understand?

Temper, Temper...
 
Level 34
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
8,869
We don't know what exactly what started the big bang at that instant, but that does not make "goddidit" an acceptable answer.
What's unacceptable about it? Looking at creation, you think it's random? No intelligent design at all?
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
You both realize three questions were asked there don't you?
We know this book is from God, because he told us. We know that God exists, because of this book.
It would seem to me that neither Elenai nor I subscribe to both of these statements. I subscribe to neither or them. I know God exists for reasons apart from the Qur'an. Furthermore, the first statement is not one that I have come across someone saying. I do not know anybody who has had God personally tell them that, "This book is from me." Were God to do so, one could not logically subscribe to the second statement, because they believe in God in the first place. What I have experienced, however, is this: "I know this book is from God, because the book says so."

Which is, of course, circular logic. Usually people believe in God or a book for other reasons than the book itself.
If I personally believed that many of the things contained in this book were immoral, then I would still not do them.
Despite God himself telling you that they are good things to do?
To be 'all' powerful, one must be above logic.
Only if there exists a power that allows you to be "above logic." This is not something I have asserted.
None of those seem illogical or miraculous to me.
Be that as it may, these kinds of discoveries will shock people to no end.
Hypothetical me said:
Someone going down deeper in the ocean than anyone else said:
There is life down here?!
You act surprised.
you cannot prove God using science
Not necessarily.
Why would God spend billions of years when he could do it in 7 days?
I sure find the way he did it awesome. Can't God do things because they are totally awesome? Personally, I love this puzzle filled world he made.
Why are we the only beings that even perform rituals to a divine being, does it make us the ultimate result of evolution?
Quite possibly.
What's the purpose of evolution, if it is divine?
Probably multi-purpose.
Why is evolution uncontrolled in the very definition of it, when it is supposedly a "tool"?
Who says it is uncontrolled?
I don't expect you to quote each one of them
I don't see a reason not to.
it's unperceivable to us in the first place the "first cause"
Mine makes perfect logical sense to me. I argue that there is nothing I can not understand.
don't think of science or evolution as God's tools because from a scientific point of view it doesn't make sense.
I thought science was apathetic to God. I don't see how it does not make sense.
The prime mover argument is refuted by the phrase "infinite regression".
A mere unproven possibility refutes nothing, except invalid deductive logic.

If you can say that a possibility refutes another possibility, then I can say that the infinite regression argument is refuted by the phrase, "Prime mover."
Until you can back it up, it's a useless answer that is worth only contempt.
So is infinite regression, if that is the case. You're right. I see absolutely no reason to discuss the possibility or infinite regression ever again. Ever. For any reason.
Gravity may exist because little green leprechauns are pulling us down so we don't float away
It was gnomes. Gravity Gnomes.
Infinite regression.
I do not think an infinitely regressing time line is a logical model of the true set of everything.
There is order because we [...] explained
Why does matter seem to be attracted to other matter?
Infinite regression. How many times do I have to post those two words?
Until you realize it doesn't affect the price of fish in China.
Well, I can walk, so yes, I have a backbone
"If something can walk, then it has a spine."
Insects.
GG, statement.
Nor is it in our power to discern how the universe came to be,
This line of thought directly causes stagnation.
People of every religion have those, thus invalidating them.
Who says God only gives miracles to people of one specific religion? I certainly do not. I believe it false. My God will grant prayers of people from other religions than Islam.
This universe that we live in was not inevitable.
I'd say it is, because it exists in reality.
You're biasing the analogy.
It's to show an inevitable outcome. For any given scenario, there is one outcome. If there is a difference in outcome, then the scenarios were, obviously, different.
We only see order because we define order as what we see.
I really don't care what was said. You guys went back and forth, from my perspective, for the sake of going back and forth. I don't think you've been attacking arguments either or you really mean or are relevant to anything.

Back to making a point, this is not the logic. The following is not true:
we define order as what we see.
Order is a mere subset of what we see.
 
Level 23
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,565
Hakeem said:
Despite God himself telling you that they are good things to do?

Yes.

Hakeem said:
Only if there exists a power that allows you to be "above logic." This is not something I have asserted.

It's the definition of omnipotence, Hakeem. We covered this already. ;)

Be that as it may, these kinds of discoveries will shock people to no end.

Which is totally irrelevant to the present debate tangent.

You both realize three questions were asked there don't you?

Two of them were identical, and I didn't understand the context of the first one.
 
Level 40
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
10,532
"If something can walk, then it has a spine."
Insects.
GG, statement.
But I am not an insect.

This line of thought directly causes stagnation.
Not in this case, apparently.

I'd say it is, because it exists in reality.
...

It's to show an inevitable outcome. For any given scenario, there is one outcome. If there is a difference in outcome, then the scenarios were, obviously, different.
But he's presenting one favourable choice, where there is no indication that many of the events in the universe had.
 
Level 33
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
But I am not an insect.

I would like to note: that me saying "Backbone" had nothing to do with your body's internal support structure.

But he's presenting one favourable choice, where there is no indication that many of the events in the universe had.

What the cupcakes were made of is irrelevant, in the end it was inevitable that only one was chosen. It doesn't matter how many cupcakes there were, as only one was inevitably, and only one could inevitably, be chosen.

Though if you want to argue about 'favourable outcomes'...Nature tends to only work through what ever outcome is the most favourable.

Natural Selection, the attraction between atoms seeking stability, etc, etc. In the end, the strawberry awesome cupcake was chosen...and chosen inevitably.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
It's the definition of omnipotence, Hakeem. We covered this already.
Pretty sure we haven't. Pretty sure this is the first time the definition has been discussed. You are free to include being able to do logically impossible things as a power, and as such include it in the set of "all power," but seeing as I have not agreed that it is, you cannot use it to refute my idea of an omnipotent being.
Not in this case, apparently.
"There is no point thinking about it," will make a lot of people not think about it. If a lower number of people are thinking about it, there will be fewer possibilities to consider, increasing the probability that we have not stumbled upon the correct answer.
 
Level 35
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
6,667
It's the definition of omnipotence, Hakeem. We covered this already. ;)

That is like saying: "God is omnipotent because I believe he is omnipotent"

We don't know anything about God, really; we do not know that he is omnipotent, and it is most likely that he is not; as omnipotence can be logically defined as impossible. (I would rather not write it out, but I will provide a few examples if requested.)

Now, let's look at how this "omnipotence" rumor came about. People wanted to know how the Earth originated, and they decided that it must have been the creation of some superior being. The only explanation they could fathom is that this being could do anything, and they began to brainstorm stories on how this happened: Creating the world in seven days; Adam and Eve for the origin of humanity.

We do, however, at this point in time, have multiple scientific explanations for how the world originated, such as the big bang theory, and although these may not be 100% true, it can be determined through logic that our current theories are more likely than past theories.

Is it not the logical conclusion to believe in what we understand to be the most likely of explanations rather than what we understand to be the less likely?
 
Level 33
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
Its easy to be omnipotent and "over-rule logic", if you set the rules for logic in the first place.

As far as the religious mind believes about our God:

Logic follows the laws of nature, and the laws of nature were set by God. God therefore has omnipotent control over his own creation, knowing how it works, and how to manipulate it to what ever end he requires, and perhaps (if need be) suspend them, or else if it is not in his nature to do so, use them in a different form, or use different laws of nature that we as of yet have not in our limited scope of intelligence and time, discovered.
 
Level 18
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,938
To really understand 'why' you would need to be inside the head of an artist...
<snip>
...I've also had life experiences that sealed that choice, what most people would call blessings, and miracles...but I'd rather not get into those for the obvious reasons.

Elenai, honestly, we don't need your entire life story. Sometimes, less is more.

But more on topic: These were merely examples of things that 'seem illogical', that do indeed exist. And that God may seem illogical, but it is indeed possible that he does exist, as I believe.

I think the argument was more that god is not 'seemingly' or apparently illogical, but that god is illogical.

Genesis, like Revelation: Is written in a symbolic-language way of explaining literal events.

<snip>

It perhaps seems uncontrolled, but God works in mysterious ways, and to me evolution seems pretty guided.

As I explained once when I was talking to Teh_Ephy about this:

"The chips of a sculptor seem random and careless at first, but through time the marble block takes shape, and what seemed random at first, comes to find out that it was quite purposeful, and full of intent."

What always amuses me about the idea that god used the big bang and evolution to create the universe and us, and that the bible is also true, is that god goes and spends like fourteen billion years on creating this elaborate ruse to make us think the universe and everything in it could have come about by the laws of physics, and then he goes and fucks it all up by impregnating some random woman. I mean, why the hell would you bother?

Daddy, where do atoms come from?
Well, Sky, my hypothetical daughter, after the big bang, baryogenesis caused the previously equal proportions of baryons and antibaryons to change, leaving a relatively small amount of baryons that then underwent neucleosynthesis, creating the nuclei cores of atoms.
Usually, finding an 'elementary' anything is not an example of finding some basic truth or existence, but rather an indicator that we simply do not understand enough, and that there is more yet to be found, just as we eventually found that atoms are not elementary at all.

But much like 'atoms' there has to be a point in which this infinite regression of causes has to stop, because at some point, you can't break down the parts into more basic parts anymore. They become what they are, 'just because'.

While I would agree that certain things - namely existence - are self evident, I've yet to see a decent argument for either god or the big bang being so.

There must at some point be some form of cause for an effect to happen. Ripples don't happen by themselves so to speak.

You're assuming causality. While it's a generally supported theory, there isn't any, so to speak, proof of causality. Hell, any kind of time travel backwards seems to pretty much throw causality as we know it out the window.

It's the definition of omnipotence, Hakeem. We covered this already. ;)

Its easy to be omnipotent and "over-rule logic", if you set the rules for logic in the first place.

As far as the religious mind believes about our God:

Logic follows the laws of nature, and the laws of nature were set by God. God therefore has omnipotent control over his own creation, knowing how it works, and how to manipulate it to what ever end he requires, and perhaps (if need be) suspend them, or else if it is not in his nature to do so, use them in a different form, or use different laws of nature that we as of yet have not in our limited scope of intelligence and time, discovered.

Logic isn't a law of nature, or a law of physics or anything like that. Logic appears to be a set of metaconcepts, a system of thought that exists independent of the mind, reality and physics entirely. We don't create or alter logic, we discover it, so to speak. To talk of being able to 'over-rule' logic is, well, illogical. Logic is the system by which we interpret and analyze arguments, inferences and validity - to envision a situation where logic does not apply is nonsensical; the tool you use to envision such is logic. Situations in nature where there have been apparent illogicalities or paradoxes have generally been situations where our existing theories and ideas had yet to perceive deep enough to explain the situation.
 
Level 23
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,565
I'm not going really to argue the omnipotence point seeing as I can't really win or lose. I take the definition literally, and all means all.

By this definition, God could make your decisions for you without removing free will, or make a world exactly like this one, but without 'evil'. Nonetheless, I've said all I can really say about that. Or, to return to the cliche: "God could create a weight heavier than he can lift, and lift that weight.

Void said:
That is like saying: "God is omnipotent because I believe he is omnipotent"

The christian god is an omnipotent one, Void.

Shados said:
Situations in nature where there have been apparent illogicalities or paradoxes have generally been situations where our existing theories and ideas had yet to perceive deep enough to explain the situation.

First, I think you mean to say "are" rather than "generally been", but meh. I'm not saying that an omnipotent being does exist, I'm just arguing that if it cannot do this, then it is not truly omnipotent.

Err. My first sentence was incorrect.
 
Level 6
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
247
Because of uneducated people in India and Africa (and somewhat in China, although the government got their ass in gear and started dealing with it) having so many kids that the population is moderated by starvation, and then some of those people emigrating to the west.

Now that is false. 'Highly developed' (not only 'highly', also Russia and numerous other countries) strive to get a positive population growth. They're all introducing pro-family programs. Need some examples? France (because their policies actually work). Probably the most secular (I know you like that word) country in Europe. They have a very much developed system of incentives. The most interesting solution being - women with children receive salary for 8-hour daily work, even though they work only 6 hours.

They're educated. They don't starve. Yet they care not about the overpopulation. Why's that? Because your oh-so-smart highly-developed countries care more about the economy, they want labour force. No children, no labour force, simple as that. And they want their own children, looking at the anti-immigration policies being introduced all around the Europe.
 
Level 18
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,938
Poot, it's less that they're uneducated and more that they, like the rest of us, are more or less driven by natural selection. If your kids are unlikely to survive, you get this powerful instinctual psychological drive to have more of them, so that at least some continue the line.
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
1,963
Poot, it's less that they're uneducated and more that they, like the rest of us, are more or less driven by natural selection. If your kids are unlikely to survive, you get this powerful instinctual psychological drive to have more of them, so that at least some continue the line.

That's just an assumption, not all of them are starving to death and clinging to dear life. Those that are, are in fact trying to maintain their population growth so that they don't starve to death. They've buried children alive because of this.
 
Top