Omnipotence Is Impossible

[totah]

I got sent this by email from a friend, and I couldn't be bothered to try and think it through properly on my own so I figured folks like PB and Smokey could find holes in the logic pretty quickly:

Omnipotence in a being with free will is impossible. If god has a will and there's nothing above god he/she/it must be free and therefore cannot be omnipotent.

If god was all knowing and knew he/she/it would raise his/her/its arm then with this knowledge would come the ability not to, and thus the need to recalculate the supposed certainty thus making what was certain incorrect. If this is then taken into account then the modified outcome becomes (in an all knowing being) a certainty, then at this point the previous certainty is no longer possible and the omnipotence is compromised. This happens as soon as the being is aware of it. To be all knowing is to be absolutely aware and with this self-awareness comes the inability to be all knowing in the first place.

if you can fault my logic please do, as im not arrogant enough to think im right, but i cant find the hole in this one!!

[Smokey D]

That just seems like a reformulation of can God make a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it. Which is a non-sensical statement with no truth value.

[siva_chair]

That just seems like a reformulation of can God make a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it. Which is a non-sensical statement with no truth value.

/thread

:smash:

[Ando!]

yea there are far better reasons for not believing in god than that

[mph4ever]

is it a requirement in the job description for god to be omnipotent?

[totah]

I thought so.


Why can't god make a toastie so hot even he can't eat it?

[PerpetualBurn]

If any action implies the passage of time, and God is outside of time, how does it make sense for us to speak of him performing any action?

[mph4ever]

it doesn't even make sense for us to refer to him as him

[PerpetualBurn]

Yes it does.

[mph4ever]

why?

[McP3000]

god is a white guy with a long grey beard
didn't you know this?

oh and to stay on topic, there is so much wrong with that email. Your friend needs to base his believes on more than 3rd grade "logic"

[PerpetualBurn]

why?

Because it's the formally applicable pronoun.

[McP3000]

And the God we are referring to would be the Judaic-Christian one, who is referred to as a "he" in the bible.

Unless its because of English's lack of a neutral gender pronoun that has lead to translation problems.

[Iskandar]

Hebrew has grammatical gender, and I think Koine Greek does too.

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm fairly confident that in the early texts the noun had male gender. And ignoring that, "him" in formal English doesn't necessarily imply gender, though this is being phased out.

[McP3000]

i wouldn't know, i was just referencing alternative reasons why God is referred to as a he.

[Iskandar]

Because masculine is the default grammatical gender. Not because of sexism, that's just how it happens to be.

[Smokey D]

Referring to God as He or he is merely short hand and only the uptight feminists would have any problem with it.

And I am probably a feminist myself.

[mph4ever]

i think its great that hes a bloke, but if he is then he surely would have created easier, less cross, hornier woe-men :)

after a certain point in time all the ancient pantheons, from which of course the abrahamic god is a direct derivative, had males at their head. prior to that there is evidence to suggest that women and fertility were the main basis for deities.

anyways, it just doesn't sound right to say "she sent down her son to die for our sins", a mother wouldn't expect that of a son. she'd say, let them worry about themsalves, you take it easy there jesus, heres a nice pie i made, do you want marshmallows in your cocoa?

[Iskandar]

God apparently has no gender.

[totah]

Yeah I somehow wouldn't think God, whether you wanna say He or She, would be affected by all the bullshit males and females inflict on their society and on themselves; God probably doesn't have glands or gender psychology...

[Spaceman Spiff]

Wouldn't you need a physical body to be defined by a gender?

I'm just sayin'...



Edit: Or, you know... exist?


Still just sayin'...

[1338 h4x0r]

yes

Isaac Newton wrote about dis

[BassRevelation1029]

i wouldn't know, i was just referencing alternative reasons why God is referred to as a he.

because theres no word for 'goddess' in the Hebrew language

[Iskandar]

because theres no word for 'goddess' in the Hebrew languageThere probably is but it's just conventional to use the masculine.

Besides, God is usually referred to in the original scripture by a variety of names including Yahweh, Elohim, etc.

[spitfirejunky]

Redefine omnipotence as being able to do all that is possible, and you have much fewer problems.

[BassRevelation1029]

There probably is but it's just conventional to use the masculine.

There's not. It's considered blasphemous to even consider God as a 'she.'

[Iskandar]

There's not. It's considered blasphemous to even consider God as a 'she.'What are you basing this on?

[BassRevelation1029]

What are you basing this on?

My study of Biblical Hebrew. It was told to me by a rabbi/Hebrew scholar

[Ando!]

Redefine omnipotence as being able to do all that is possible, and you have much fewer problems.

no not really as the argument "Well couldn't you create X that is so Y that it's beyond your capabilities? But if you can do everything, shouldn't you be able to Y that X?" can still exist in that context

[Iskandar]

My study of Biblical Hebrew. It was told to me by a rabbi/Hebrew scholarAre you fluent?

Was that rabbi Orthodox? Because more liberal sects of Judaism have absolutely no problem with referring to God using gender-neutral language.

[Curve]

That just seems like a reformulation of can God make a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it. Which is a non-sensical statement with no truth value.

Actually its probably the most simple way of explaining why being omniscient and omnipotent is impossible

[BassRevelation1029]

Are you fluent?
not at all.

I studied the language for the prophetical meanings of the Bible, not for conversational speech.

Was that rabbi Orthodox? Because more liberal sects of Judaism have absolutely no problem with referring to God using gender-neutral language.
yes he was Orthodox.

It may be gender-neutral, but never is there a female word for God.

[spitfirejunky]

no not really as the argument "Well couldn't you create X that is so Y that it's beyond your capabilities? But if you can do everything, shouldn't you be able to Y that X?" can still exist in that context

If Y is beyond your capabilities, then Y is impossible and doesn't compromise omnipotence.

[Smokey D]

Actually its probably the most simple way of explaining why being omniscient and omnipotent is impossible

No not really.

Etymologically, omnipotence is about possibility. It refers to do the ability to do all possible things. If you trace the word, you will see how power and potence are related (in most cases derived from) the word 'to be able'. In French, for example, the word le pouvoir (power) is exactly the same as the verb pouvoir, (to be able).

Omnipotence is therefore derived from the phrase as ability to do all possibilities. Creating a rock so heavy God can't lift it, God asking a question He can't answer etc are impossible according to our understanding of power. But that doesn't make him less than all powerful because he still has the ability to do all possible things. An impossible thing is a non-thing. It does not exist and cannot exist. So it's irrelevant.

[griftadan]

i don't think thats what people mean when they talk about gods abilities, which according to scripture means he can do anything, including things that are physically impossible. as in create something out of nothing, part the red sea in defiance of gravity, etc... if that's how one thinks of god's abilities, then the example of the stone certainly goes to show a paradox

unless of course there is some physically possible way for these things to be done that were not aware of, but you know what i mean.

[Smokey D]

I think we can distinguish between what seems physically impossible and what is logically impossible.

[Curve]

once again theology has been able to worm out of rationale and keep alive their bad bad subject.

so god infact can't do anything after all, just things he is able to do. If that isn't a cop out and not really omnipotence then I don't know what is.

[rasputin]

because he still has the ability to do all possible things. An impossible thing is a non-thing. It does not exist and cannot exist. So it's irrelevant.
Exactly.
An easy way of looking at it is God cannot make a round square, just as he cannot make a stone so heavy he can't lift it.

[Smokey D]

once again theology has been able to worm out of rationale and keep alive their bad bad subject.

so god infact can't do anything after all, just things he is able to do. If that isn't a cop out and not really omnipotence then I don't know what is.

Okay you have to show me how a logical impossibility is in any meaningful sense a real thing.

[griftadan]

I think we can distinguish between what seems physically impossible and what is logically impossible.

but theists often don't, they'll take omnipotence to mean that god can literally do anything regardless of physical possibility

and to be honest i don't think you can distinguish between physical possibility and logical possibility, they're the same thing, we base logic on the physical rules of the universe

[peeted]

No we dont, its logicaly possible that the world could be made of cheese and that when you play pool you hit a ball and it moves backward.

[Ando!]

If Y is beyond your capabilities, then Y is impossible and doesn't compromise omnipotence.

well a few definitions (not the one that's necessarily applied by you) beg to differ:

1. God is able to do anything, i. e. the answer to "can God do x" is always "yes", regardless of what x may be. However this leads to obvious contradictions and is a view rarely held by theologians. Although it can be argued that to try to rationalize God's omnipotent power is a vain undertaking, since we cannot ever really understand God's power, and is perhaps better to take it on faith.(see Kierkegaard)
2. God is able to do anything that is logically possible for God to do[1].
3. God is able to do anything that God chooses to do[2].
4. God is able to do anything that is in accord with His own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of God's nature that what God speaks is truth, then God is not able to lie).
5. Hold that it is part of God's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for God to go against His own laws unless there were a reason to do so

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

it IS wikipedia but still

[totah]

Yeah I guess all these arguments rely on the assumption that divinity = consistency, and there's nowhere it says that.

[Curve]

Okay you have to show me how a logical impossibility is in any meaningful sense a real thing.

isn't that the point? what religion first claimed obviously isn't true so they backtrack and then say 'well obv we didn't mean he can do EVERYTHING'

It seems that as the human race progresses religion is increasingly backtracking over everything it once claimed.

[PerpetualBurn]

isn't that the point? what religion first claimed obviously isn't true so they backtrack and then say 'well obv we didn't mean he can do EVERYTHING'

It seems that as the human race progresses religion is increasingly backtracking over everything it once claimed.I don't think you're getting it.

The whole stupid rock paradox is just a non-question.

It's like asking "Does God know the square root of Popeye?".

The question is internally inconsistent.

[Oriah]

That just seems like a reformulation of can God make a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it. Which is a non-sensical statement with no truth value.

and the winner by TKO in the first round.

[Smokey D]

but theists often don't, they'll take omnipotence to mean that god can literally do anything regardless of physical possibility

What theists actually believe is quite irrelevant, I think.

and to be honest i don't think you can distinguish between physical possibility and logical possibility, they're the same thing, we base logic on the physical rules of the universe

Sure you can.

And doesn't quantum mean that all sorts of physical things that are impossible according to standard physics might be possible?

[RockAndRoll]

And doesn't quantum mean that all sorts of physical things that are impossible according to standard physics might be possible?
Well, yes but that's kind of irrelevant. It's just because classical physics was wrong.


But for the record I agree about the whole logical impossiblity vs physical impossiblity thing.

[Futue te Ipsum]

No real man would want to get a girl knocked up without having sex with her first.

[griftadan]

What theists actually believe is quite irrelevant, I think.

well if the purpose of such a rhetorical question is to convince theists that this line of thought is false, then it's pretty relevant

Sure you can.

And doesn't quantum mean that all sorts of physical things that are impossible according to standard physics might be possible?

well i think it just means that we have to expand our definition of what is physically possible because we don't yet understand how it all works

and we do base our logic on certain assumptions about the physical universe, john cannot be in two places at once, john cannot weigh 70 kilos and 90 kilos at once, etc...

No we dont, its logicaly possible that the world could be made of cheese and that when you play pool you hit a ball and it moves backward.

neither of those are logically possible

[Bfhurricane]

The funny thing about God is that, by nature, He is impossible. But if you accept God then you accept that you are taking a huge step of blind faith that since He created our natural boundaries, he can bend and break them at His will for Himself.

In short, its all possible and were not meant to understand it. If God and His intentions and such were all logically provable and supported by science, it would be taught in science books no different than the atomic theory. But since He isn't like that, He's just some ultra-being that is too good for all that, He's supposed to be looked at with that in mind.

"A Day is like a Thousand Years in the eye of The Lord, and a Thousand Years like a Day."

Not logically possible. Neither is Omnipotence, unless you defy natural logic, which is a defiance you must believe in order to believe in God. Which I do, by the way ;)

[Mr. Ron]

See thats the problem with faith, its based on nothing. To me that is silly.

[Sunshine]

Eh.
I don't see why people get so up-in-arms about the whole God thing.

I mean, I understand getting irritated with those who shove it in everyone's face and try and convert everyone and all of that, but like.
If someone wants to believe in something I don't necessarily agree with, and it's not harming them or me, that's totally fine.

[Curve]

Problem is it's all too easy for you ^^ to do that, which is sad. You're happy not understanding everything (or even trying to understand) and that is the issue with religion. Not questioning absolutely everything just because you have been 'taught' not to.

Problem is if science took the same school of thought as you then you probably wouldn't live the life you do...but don't worry, the lord is looking out for you....in his mysterious ways

[Curve]

Eh.

If someone wants to believe in something I don't necessarily agree with, and it's not harming them or me, that's totally fine.

It can lead to harm

[Sunshine]

How?
I went to Catholic church every week for 17 1/2 years, and still go summers/winters when I'm home with my parents.
I find myself pretty unharmed.

And all the mormons I know are like, super nice and awesome, insane as their religion is.
In fact, I don't know anyone who has been harmed by religion.

[Curve]

Niceness has nothing to do with it. All we need to understand is truth, no matter how brutal. And unfortunately just because it is nice doesn't make it true or healthy to believe in.

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't know anyone who has been harmed by religion.

What you don't know could fill a warehouse.

[Curve]

What you don't know could fill a warehouse.

My god I'm gonna stop speaking, you are saying what I want to say but better. plz go for the throat

chris morris would be proud

[Sunshine]

You've failed to show me how religion can harm people.

Yes, extremist suicide bombings harm people.

But your standard, moderate belief?
Prove it.

[Smokey D]

well if the purpose of such a rhetorical question is to convince theists that this line of thought is false, then it's pretty relevant

I don't think so. Both pro and anti God people are liable to misdefine omnipotence. We can correct both of them.

well i think it just means that we have to expand our definition of what is physically possible because we don't yet understand how it all works

True.

and we do base our logic on certain assumptions about the physical universe, john cannot be in two places at once, john cannot weigh 70 kilos and 90 kilos at once, etc...

Sure but it's logically impossible that John can have the mutually incompatible qualities of weighing 70kg and 90kg at the same time. Strictly speaking, it is not logically impossible that the Red Sea was parted.

neither of those are logically possible

Sure they are. they just haven't been empirically observed.

[PerpetualBurn]

You've failed to show me how religion can harm people.

Yes, extremist suicide bombings harm people.

But your standard, moderate belief?
Prove it.

Is this some perverted no true Scotsman fallacy you're trying to run with?

Yes, religion can harm people, but show me it harms people.

Curve didn't say religious belief always harms everyone. He said it can cause harm.

[griftadan]

I don't think so. Both pro and anti God people are liable to misdefine omnipotence. We can correct both of them.

ok then

Sure but it's logically impossible that John can have the mutually incompatible qualities of weighing 70kg and 90kg at the same time. Strictly speaking, it is not logically impossible that the Red Sea was parted.

in the way it was described and is commonly accepted in judeo-christian doctrine, i'd say it is, unless we we reject our current ideas about the laws of nature

Sure they are. they just haven't been empirically observed.

the one about the world, ok, as for the cue ball one, i don't think it is logically possible if we are holding the correct premises

[PerpetualBurn]

I think "logically possible" is generally being used to mean "internally consistent". In the way we might consider, say, the world of a fantasy novel logically possible in that it may not contain any internal contradictions, but that we realise magic can not exist in our world.

[griftadan]

but shouldn't logically possible give some consideration to premises?

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm not sure what precisely you mean by that.

But I think it would be argued that the Bible is internally consistent, and so is logically possible in spite of how you believe physics to preclude its events.

I would agree with you though that such an argument would be shite.

[spitfirejunky]

well a few definitions (not the one that's necessarily applied by you) beg to differ:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

it IS wikipedia but still

First you quoted me to challenge the sense in the definition I gave. Now you're just pointing out that other definitions exist.

What are you trying to prove here?

[peeted]

well if the purpose of such a rhetorical question is to convince theists that this line of thought is false, then it's pretty relevant



well i think it just means that we have to expand our definition of what is physically possible because we don't yet understand how it all works

and we do base our logic on certain assumptions about the physical universe, john cannot be in two places at once, john cannot weigh 70 kilos and 90 kilos at once, etc...



neither of those are logically possible

They are both logicaly possible, you are just confused about what logical possibility actualy is. Anything that doesnt involve a contradiction in terms is logicaly possible, for example although its physicaly impossible for a pool ball to move backward when you hit it its not logicaly impossible because theres no contradiction in the concept. However having a square triangle or a married bachelor involves contradiction so are logical impossibilities.

[Bfhurricane]

Problem is it's all too easy for you ^^ to do that, which is sad. You're happy not understanding everything (or even trying to understand) and that is the issue with religion. Not questioning absolutely everything just because you have been 'taught' not to.

Problem is if science took the same school of thought as you then you probably wouldn't live the life you do...but don't worry, the lord is looking out for you....in his mysterious ways

Trust me, it wasn't easy. It's not like Ive been brainwashed into thinking God is the "be all end all." I also take offense to your comment that I've been taught not to question my beliefs. Surprisingly to you, Christians are taught to question their faith to better strengthen it. One day I decided to put the "brainwashing" bullshit aside and search out the truth myself and gave God a chance. It worked. I'm not going to go into my own personal conversion or experiences with God because it would cause way too much controversy on this thread and you guys would easily question my sanity.

I completely believe in science, evolution, etc. I also believe in a higher power that kickstarted it. Your sarcastic comments about God looking out for me also serve nothing to your argument. The one problem with most of the science world is that almost no one even acknowledges the possibility of a presence of God in a profession where you must give the benefit of the doubt to everything. And I'm quite brilliant in science and philosophy, dont mistake me for an evangelical hick.

Thus leading to my final point: I believe in something greater than myself and acknowledge that not everything is logically possible, and submit myself to trust that omnipotence in a higher being (God) is perfectly possible. If you think about it, logically, there can be no logical argument made for the beginnings of time and space...

[VomitStainedCretin]

The Omnipotence Debate is rather tiresome tbh, as it's just a case of defining what exactly this abstract, metaphysical quality is and what consequences the definition produces. Admittedly, some of the consequences of particular definitions are quite amusing, e.g. God ends up able to make round squares if It can do the logically impossible, but the arguments don't lead anywhere substantial. Besides which, omnipotence is beyond human comprehension, so you can't really define it, and whether or not God could create a stone It couldn't lift is a dispute only dealing with a minor part of It's Nature, without any consequences for existential matters.

[PerpetualBurn]

Thus leading to my final point: I believe in something greater than myself and acknowledge that not everything is logically possible, and submit myself to trust that omnipotence in a higher being (God) is perfectly possible.

If things that were logically impossible could exist, then they wouldn't be logically impossible.

If you think about it, logically, there can be no logical argument made for the beginnings of time and space...

See, the problem is you seem to demand some respect and claim to understand science, logic, and reason.

And then you go and say something absolutely ****ing stupid like this.

[Bfhurricane]

But whats so stupid about that? What I brought up there is the ultimate stumping argument for people who claim there is no God.

If things that were logically impossible could exist, then they wouldn't be logically impossible.

I'm talking about existing out of this realm - in another world. It's the concept that most religions have, and a concept you must believe in in order to be part of one of those religions.

By the only type of logic that seems to be allowed in science, God doesn't exist. If I put my logic into a God I believe in, then all seems to be possible. Then again, I'm likely talking to a brick wall here...

[irishslappop]

If I put my logic into a God I believe in, then all seems to be possible.

:chug:

[PerpetualBurn]

But whats so stupid about that? What I brought up there is the ultimate stumping argument for people who claim there is no God.

Except you didn't produce a "stumping argument" at all.

I'm talking about existing out of this realm - in another world. It's the concept that most religions have, and a concept you must believe in in order to be part of one of those religions.

It's impossible to conceive of the illogical. It requires that things be consistent with themselves, not with our universe.

By the only type of logic that seems to be allowed in science, God doesn't exist. If I put my logic into a God I believe in, then all seems to be possible. Then again, I'm likely talking to a brick wall here...

"Your logic" isn't different to any other logic.

Unless you just don't understand logic.

Which I suspect you don't.

[Curve]

If you think about it, logically, there can be no logical argument made for the beginnings of time and space...

Can you show me why please? Or can you not show me at all, but you instead just intend to believe that without really having any proof at all and you're just going to say 'well god is out of natural laws and can do anything therefore yay! an answer' and just be content with that?

[Bfhurricane]

When you come up with a reason for the beginnings of time and space, let me know.

I understand logic just as well as you do. Of course, nonreligious people such as yourself are completely ignorant to the possibility of a higher being. But then again, in science, you must give the benefit of the doubt to everything until proven otherwise. There is no scientific evidence that God doesn't exist. My point is, you have to be fair to both sides of the argument.

Im not here to convert, otherwise Id be saying much different things. Im just here to provide a fair argument.

[Futue te Ipsum]

But then again, in science, you must give the benefit of the doubt to everything until proven otherwise.That's not true at all.

[PerpetualBurn]

When you come up with a reason for the beginnings of time and space, let me know.

Do you honestly believe that there's no scientific stance on this subject at all?

I understand logic just as well as you do.

Liar.

Of course, nonreligious people such as yourself are completely ignorant to the possibility of a higher being.

I'm not ignorant to the possibility. I think there's no reason to suggest it. And that any particular conception of a god beyond the most simple definition is even more retarded.

But then again, in science, you must give the benefit of the doubt to everything until proven otherwise.

Liar.

There is no scientific evidence that God doesn't exist. My point is, you have to be fair to both sides of the argument.

I am being fair.

If there were an atheist here acting like a complete moron, I'd call them a moron too.
Im not here to convert, otherwise Id be saying much different things. Im just here to provide a fair argument.

You don't have an argument.

You basically said that you simply choose to ignore any logical problems in belief in God.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Our lack of knowledge on the origins of the universe proves nothing other than that science still has a long ways to go. We can retrace our steps back to something tentatively called the Big Bang, and after that we have no evidence for anything because as far as we know matter was so condensed that the energy is still being dissipated 6 billion years later.

For all we know, it might be completely outside the realm of what a human brain can conceive of, or a scientist might wake up tomorrow with an idea for the unifying theory of gravity, space, and time, explain anti-matter, and we could all own pocket-sized time machines in 10 years. Either way, our own ignorance does not suggest proof of anything other than our own ignorance.

[Futue te Ipsum]

you can quite easily and justifiably state that there wasn't a "before the big bang" for anything to have happened in.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

you can quite easily and justifiably state that there wasn't a "before the big bang" for anything to have happened in.

How can you justify it? Whether there was something or not, we wouldn't know. We don't even know if our way of conceiving time and space can be extended past that point.

Even if you were to assume the Big Bang was the point where the universe was created, you'd raise the quesion of what created whatever created the universe, and you'd be in a whole other logical mindf*ck. I just don't think the human race has the knowledge or understanding to try to assume it knows the answer to what there was before "time zero". Saying it was God and that it isn't our place to question Him (or that we can't understand His ways) is a way of short-circuiting the question and providing a vague, end-all answer to feel less ignorant.

[Futue te Ipsum]

under general relativity time would break down at t=0 of the big bang. Without time, a "before the big bang" would be impossible. Infinity with a start and an end :)

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

under general relativity time would break down at t=0 of the big bang. Without time, a "before the big bang" would be impossible. Infinity with a start and an end :)

Haha, there we go. Which is exactly why we can't figure it out. If there is a wall, there is an answer to the question "what is on the other side of the wall?". I guess it's easier for us to conceive of there being no "end," but still.

Either time began with the Big Bang (raising the question what there was before it, or how it came to be), there is such a thing as "t=negative infinity", or our entire concept of time is quite irrelevant to this context. In any of the three scenarios we probably have a couple hundred years of head-scratching ahead of us.

[wartomods]

Did you guys know that the total energy of the universe is equal to 0

[PerpetualBurn]

Haha, there we go. Which is exactly why we can't figure it out. If there is a wall, there is an answer to the question "what is on the other side of the wall?". I guess it's easier for us to conceive of there being no "end," but still.

Either time began with the Big Bang (raising the question what there was before it, or how it came to be), there is such a thing as "t=negative infinity", or our entire concept of time is quite irrelevant to this context. In any of the three scenarios we probably have a couple hundred years of head-scratching ahead of us.

"I have a layman's view of physics, therefore we don't know the answer to my nonsensical questioning, therefore it's okay to propose any stupid answer". Great.

There's no "before time". It's an illogical concept.

You seem to be suggesting that the ideas and theories developed round and leading to the suggestion of the big bang, and the currently held scientific viewpoints aren't far more well grounded and robust than any others. They are.

[RockAndRoll]

The one problem with most of the science world is that almost no one even acknowledges the possibility of a presence of God in a profession where you must give the benefit of the doubt to everything.
That's not a problem with the "science world" and science doesn't have to give the benefit of the doubt to everything, I don't know where that came from.

Thus leading to my final point: I believe in something greater than myself and acknowledge that not everything is logically possible
But everything that is in fact a thing IS logically possible. Things that aren't logically possible aren't things. It's sort of like what perpetual burn was getting at here:

It's like asking "Does God know the square root of Popeye?".

Things which aren't logically possible aren't things at all. A square circle, or a married bachelor are not things, they're non-sensical. They have absolutely no meaning to them. They're empty symbols.

If you think about it, logically, there can be no logical argument made for the beginnings of time and space...
What?

[Curve]

When you come up with a reason for the beginnings of time and space, let me know.

so until then any old answer will do?



But then again, in science, you must give the benefit of the doubt to everything until proven otherwise.

I find it amazing that you're actually worse at debating on the internet than me...


There is no scientific evidence that God doesn't exist.


chocolate teapot argument plz?

The issue is it's upto you to prove your claim correct isn't it?

[Ando!]

The one problem with most of the science world is that almost no one even acknowledges the possibility of a presence of God in a profession where you must give the benefit of the doubt to everything.

hmm

do you acknowledge the possibility hats being organic, which we would see if we weren't being deceived by the anti-hatter?

[Bfhurricane]

do you acknowledge the possibility hats being organic, which we would see if we weren't being deceived by the anti-hatter?
Elaborate?

so until then any old answer will do?
Please give me the textbook answer, can't say I've read it.

The issue is it's upto you to prove your claim correct isn't it?
I'm not trying to prove that my claim is correct. I'm giving a view on the topic of this thread from a religious point of view. My point being that if God exists and He's the master of our universe, time and space, omnipotence is possible.

[Ando!]

Elaborate?



I meant just that, my beliefs about the anti hatter have not been disproven so you must give them benefit of the doubt, no?

[Bfhurricane]

Im kind of confused by your argument of an organic hat and an anti-hatter... or am I missing something entirely? In general, most things need to be given the benefit of the doubt, no different than in a court of law. Especially a God that such a large portion of the world believes in.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Did you guys know that the total energy of the universe is equal to 0

how so?

"I have a layman's view of physics, therefore we don't know the answer to my nonsensical questioning, therefore it's okay to propose any stupid answer". Great.

There's no "before time". It's an illogical concept.

You seem to be suggesting that the ideas and theories developed round and leading to the suggestion of the big bang, and the currently held scientific viewpoints aren't far more well grounded and robust than any others. They are.

haha wow. Misread me so you can put words in my mouth so you can somehow conclude I hate science and think I somehow know things science doesn't. Tell me what you think my opinion is. I'm actually curious just how badly you failed at understanding that science has a lot further to go before we can explain what happened before the Big Bang.

[Smokey D]

Since time began at the big bang, the idea of before the big bang doesn't make sense. If anything it highlights that some things are simply beyond our powers of description.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Since time began at the big bang, the idea of before the big bang doesn't make sense. If anything it highlights that some things are simply beyond our powers of description.

What makes less sense - that you could go infinitely far back in time and never reach the end of it, or that time does indeed have a beginning, and that everything spontaneously arose from an inconceivable emptiness?

Anyway, it's obviously nothing a bunch of hacks on the internet are going to figure out, it's just fun to think about. Maybe I should've gone into astrophysics.

[Smokey D]

The whole point of the Big Bang theory is that it's when time began.

But it's not necessary to speculate about why the singularity expanded to come to that conclusion.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

The whole point of the Big Bang theory is that it's when time began.


Yes. And the whole point of my original post was that we're still hazy on a lot of the details. Nothing more. I'm not sure why that ended up dominating this whole page, but anyway. It's my bed time. Nothing more to add for me. Gnight, internet.

[totah]

I shouldn't worry about how the universe began and all that, if I were youse. No matter how long ago it began, we've only been around for less than thirty years (taking into consideration people in this forum more than anybody else) and the future's looking bleak. If you find yourself in the middle of a huge party, don't worry about how you got there; just enjoy it.

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm actually curious just how badly you failed at understanding that science has a lot further to go before we can explain what happened before the Big Bang.

The fact that you've once again referred to a "before the Big Bang" demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.

[rasputin]

well isn't a part of Stephen Hawking's theory about all of this that time is circular? Therefore not having a beginning? (I might be wrong, correct me if so)

[wartomods]

Yes. And the whole point of my original post was that we're still hazy on a lot of the details. Nothing more. I'm not sure why that ended up dominating this whole page, but anyway. It's my bed time. Nothing more to add for me. Gnight, internet.

Is there time if there is no one to count it and to feel its effects ?

[Curve]

Is there time if there is no one to count it and to feel its effects ?

probably

[PerpetualBurn]

Definitely.

[totah]

Tree in woods; the universe only exists for you, remember that. When you die, it is all gone.

[RockAndRoll]

Tree in woods; the universe only exists for you, remember that. When you die, it is all gone.

No, not at all. You only exist as you. The universe will go on.

[totah]

Don't try to be objective, it doesn't become humanity. Absolutely everything you hold to be true is a product of your five (limited) senses.

[Ando!]

Im kind of confused by your argument of an organic hat and an anti-hatter... or am I missing something entirely? In general, most things need to be given the benefit of the doubt, no different than in a court of law. Especially a God that such a large portion of the world believes in.

so the anti hatter is real, then

he is not disproven and thus should be given the benefit of the doubt

god help all hats

[RockAndRoll]

Don't try to be objective, it doesn't become humanity. Absolutely everything you hold to be true is a product of your five (limited) senses.

Yes, everything I hold to be true is. So once I die, without my senses, I will be nothing. Not: without me the universe is nothing.

Big difference.

Don't be so arrogant it doesn't become humanity.

[totah]

Well, you might still have your consciousness entity (that is, your ability to reason, which is as far as I can feel separate to my sensual abilities), floating about, as it were, going "Oh crap was that it?" and "Where did that ****ing bus come from?!"

But the universe as you understand it (assuming you have the same understanding as me, because really all I'm saying and all anyone else can possibly be saying is "As I understand it...", emphasis on the I) will have ended for you, which as far as you yourself is concerned means it's ended for everybody.

And that's enough kwantum sykolojikle mistisism from me. Good night, and may God bless you, if s/h/it, which s/h/it can't 'cos of what Andy said on the first page.

[stevensonmat2]

Well, you might still have your consciousness entity (that is, your ability to reason, which is as far as I can feel separate to my sensual abilities), floating about, as it were, going "Oh crap was that it?" and "Where did that ****ing bus come from?!"

Oh yes, it makes total sense that our reasoning will float around after we die, it's magical like that. :rolleyes:

Everything about us is tied to our mortal bodies.

[RockAndRoll]

But the universe as you understand it

But the point is: your understanding of the universe =/= the universe.

[wartomods]

Definitely.

When i talk about someone i say subastances, movements related to the atomic level, that reflect all the other movements in the universe... The dualism between mater and time isnt bland

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

The fact that you've once again referred to a "before the Big Bang" demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's no such thing as flying pink elephants, but you can still use the words. Quit harping on me when you know exactly what I mean.

[RockAndRoll]

When i talk about someone i say subastances, movements related to the atomic level, that reflect all the other movements in the universe... The dualism between mater and time isnt bland

If you meant nothing then actually using that word would've been a much wiser choice.

There's no such thing as flying pink elephants, but you can still use the words. Quit harping on me when you know exactly what I mean.
Yeah, but on the other hand if you'd asked a question like "what's going on with these flying pink elephants?" he still probably would've called you an idiot. That you can string words together doesn't mean that what you said is smart or makes any sense.

[Bfhurricane]

The fact that you've once again referred to a "before the Big Bang" demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.
Two words: Plank epoch

[McP3000]

well isn't a part of Stephen Hawking's theory about all of this that time is circular? Therefore not having a beginning? (I might be wrong, correct me if so)
if forget what the concept is called but goes along these lines.

A singularity explodes and creates Universe A. After a finite amount of time (however large), the universe's central gravity force sucks all matter back into the singularity and it explodes again creating Universe B. The process continues on.

Theres not really anything supporting the statement other than conjecture. Ultimately this theory has as much basis as God creating it (empirically)

[siva_chair]

I don't really see what is wrong stating "God is logic."

Even within this thread people have pretty much just replaced the word "God" with the word "Logic" as the great, absolute, supreme, mover and shaker of all things.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Don't try to be objective, it doesn't become humanity. Absolutely everything you hold to be true is a product of your five (limited) senses.we have more than five senses

and no

[RockAndRoll]

I don't really see what is wrong stating "God is logic."

Even within this thread people have pretty much just replaced the word "God" with the word "Logic" as the great, absolute, supreme, mover and shaker of all things.
Well you could say that, if you really wanted to, but I don't know why you would. You could say "God is the letter Y on my keyboard" but I don't know what would every compel you to make such a statement.

You can generally get away with it because God tends to be a somewhat ambiguous term and people often disagree on precisely what God means. But like I said I don't know why you would say that or how that information would be at all valuable.

and no, logic isn't a mover and shaker of things.

[siva_chair]

Well you could say that, if you really wanted to, but I don't know why you would. You could say "God is the letter Y on my keyboard" but I don't know what would every compel you to make such a statement.

You can generally get away with it because God tends to be a somewhat ambiguous term and people often disagree on precisely what God means. But like I said I don't know why you would say that or how that information would be at all valuable.

and no, logic isn't a mover and shaker of things.

Look at it this way:

These are the virtues/characteristics almost universally attributed to "God": All knowing, All powerful, Omnipresent, Eternal.

Now logic fits the same characteristics if you think about it.

Logic determines what the facts can be. It has already been demonstrated in this thread that illogical things cannot be, so thus, reality must conform to logic. It determines the facts of reality. In this sense logic is all powerful.

If, in theory, all the facts can be deduced from those in the present, then Logic knows all things.

The rules of logical consistency exist at any and all points in reality whether it be here or the farthest point in the universe because "reality" is defined as the complete set of all consistent facts that can be derived from logical principles. So Logic in this sense is Omnipresent. Science even says this with fundamental laws and whatnot.

The rules of logical consistency will remain the same for all time. We know that the facts in the future must be consistent with the facts of the past. So in this sense Logic is Eternal.

I reason that if two concepts share all the same attributes/characteristics, then they are the same thing.

"In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God and the Word (Logos) was God."

[Lupus]

You could say that God is logic, but it wouldn't mean anything other than rejecting other definitions of God, so you have a synonym.

[ashman]

if forget what the concept is called but goes along these lines.

A singularity explodes and creates Universe A. After a finite amount of time (however large), the universe's central gravity force sucks all matter back into the singularity and it explodes again creating Universe B. The process continues on.

Theres not really anything supporting the statement other than conjecture. Ultimately this theory has as much basis as God creating it (empirically)

Unfortunatly, that 'recyclable' Universe theory doesn't match current observations, so it's more like "Singularity fizzles a bit and goes pop, universe is created, universe dies as energy achieves equilibrium, the end".

[siva_chair]

You could say that God is logic, but it wouldn't mean anything other than rejecting other definitions of God, so you have a synonym.

What attributes does logic have that God does not?

I have listed the characteristics that are pretty much universally attributed to what people call God.

[PerpetualBurn]

There's no such thing as flying pink elephants, but you can still use the words. Quit harping on me when you know exactly what I mean.

Well sure but if you used the words "flying pink elephants" it would be different in that such elephants aren't logically impossible. Where as "before time" just doesn't make any sense at all.

Two words: Plank epoch

Is the earliest point in time, if I recall correctly. I don't see the relevance.

Look at it this way:

These are the virtues/characteristics almost universally attributed to "God": All knowing, All powerful, Omnipresent, Eternal.

Now logic fits the same characteristics if you think about it.


You're an idiot.

Logic isn't a conscious, distinct, and creative being.

So it doesn't fit any of the most important characteristics of God.

What attributes does logic have that God does not?

Consciousness.
Creativity.
Being a distinct entity rather than an abstract noun.

[siva_chair]

You're an idiot.

Oh gee I'm convinced. :rolleyes:

Logic isn't a conscious, distinct, and creative being.

I disagree.

So it doesn't fit any of the most important characteristics of God.

Sure it does.


Consciousness.
Creativity.
Being a distinct entity rather than an abstract noun.

Well if Logic is the fundamental truth and order to everything in the universe and nothing can exist outside of said fundamental truth(s) I think it is quite easy to see that it is the ultimate creative force.

Also consciousness is pretty ambiguous. You are going to have to clarify what you mean by that, as it tends to be a state that defies definition.

[PerpetualBurn]

Pray tell, how is logic conscious?

Because you don't get to say retarded things like this:

If, in theory, all the facts can be deduced from those in the present, then Logic knows all things.

until you've demonstrated that.

[McP3000]

Unfortunatly, that 'recyclable' Universe theory doesn't match current observations, so it's more like "Singularity fizzles a bit and goes pop, universe is created, universe dies as energy achieves equilibrium, the end".
what do you mean current observations?

you've observed this phenomena? I'm quite impressed.

[siva_chair]

Pray tell, how is logic conscious?

Because you don't get to say retarded things like this:


until you've demonstrated that.

Umm I don't really see how that is retarded. I'm really sorry if you don't understand sentence structure or the English language I can't really help you with that.

It's basically saying that all things that exist do so because they are logical. There is nothing outside logic. You said it yourself illogical things aren't even "things." If something cannot be deduced by logic (Obviously our limitations of knowlege and awareness inhibit us from being able to deduce all things), then it lies outside of logic, and is therefore illogical. All possible true knowlege that could ever be known about the universe is logical. Logic knows all things.

[PerpetualBurn]

Logic knows all things.

We might acquire all knowledge through logic.

But it's a fallacy to say therefore logic knows all things.

That an agent have knowledge requires that it be conscious and sentient.

So how is logic conscious?

Don't ignore the question this time.

[Mr. Ron]

I don't see how logic can possibly know something...sounds like a bunch of metaphysical BS to me.

[siva_chair]

We might acquire all knowledge through logic.

But it's a fallacy to say therefore logic knows all things.

That an agent have knowledge requires that it be conscious and sentient.

So how is logic conscious?

Don't ignore the question this time.

You mean kinda like how you ignored my request for you to define what exactly you meant by consciousness?

[Mr. Ron]

I would just like to know how logic can possibly know something.

[1338 h4x0r]

Logic (at least as I know it) is a set of rules for determining the truth or falsehood of a statement. My experience with logic is limited only to the and/or/not/implies kind, so let me know if I missed anything.

Basically, logic is no more a conscious entity than the rules of AD&D v3.5 or the source code of Firefox are conscious entities

[Futue te Ipsum]

I like german food

[1338 h4x0r]

Wait. What?

I'm basically half-German. I'm loath to admit it, but we're mostly a bunch of hardcore assholes.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm half german, almost half irish, some Ukrainian. So, Idk what I am. Asshole? maybe.

[guitrguy]

You would be a drunk and oppressed asshole.

[McP3000]

Logic (at least as I know it) is a set of rules for determining the truth or falsehood of a statement. My experience with logic is limited only to the and/or/not/implies kind, so let me know if I missed anything.

Basically, logic is no more a conscious entity than the rules of AD&D v3.5 or the source code of Firefox are conscious entities
the firefox application has more consciousness than logic.

logic is simply a man-made concept to describe a mental evaluation of a situation.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Well sure but if you used the words "flying pink elephants" it would be different in that such elephants aren't logically impossible. Where as "before time" just doesn't make any sense at all.

x l===========


if l is the big bang and ====== is time, i am talking about x. you can say there is no x, but you can't say people aren't allowed to try to figure out what that actually means.

[McP3000]

x l===========


if l is the big bang and ====== is time, i am talking about x. you can say there is no x, but you can't say people aren't allowed to try to figure out what that actually means.
if there is no X, then it means nothing.

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm half german, almost half irish, some Ukrainian. So, Idk what I am. Asshole? maybe.

half-asshole, almost half pisser and a little mafia

lol, like I said, I'm basically half-German and I have a fair bit of Irish. I haven't really got anything against the Slavic peoples, especially the Western Slavic ones such as Ukrainians. I find them to be pretty pleasant and (relatively) liberal. It's good to see you picked up the autodidactic streak from the Irish.

[Berner]

Full German here. WHAT NOW?!

[Mr. Ron]

Full German here. WHAT NOW?!

Murderer

[1338 h4x0r]

100% marinated asshole with a glass of rather stiff beer

[Mr. Ron]

all germans wear black turtle necks and small, round glasses

[spitfirejunky]

Logic (at least as I know it) is a set of rules for determining the truth or falsehood of a statement. My experience with logic is limited only to the and/or/not/implies kind, so let me know if I missed anything.

Basically, logic is no more a conscious entity than the rules of AD&D v3.5 or the source code of Firefox are conscious entities

You missed the part that it's a necessary building block of the universe. Without logic, existence is pretty much meaningless.

the firefox application has more consciousness than logic.

logic is simply a man-made concept to describe a mental evaluation of a situation.

The fact that we have a phenomenology for logic doesn't mean that logic is man-made.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

if there is no X, then it means nothing.

sure, but it makes sense to ask what that really means, how it's possible or how nothing can become something.

[1338 h4x0r]

You missed the part that it's a necessary building block of the universe. Without logic, existence is pretty much meaningless.

Does that make it a 'conscious entity'? It's not often that I ask a rhetorical question, and I'm not asking one this time ... I'm really puzzled here...


The fact that we have a phenomenology for logic doesn't mean that logic is man-made.

What the hell is a 'phenomenology'?

I agree that everything in logic and/or mathematics* has existed forever and humans are just beginning to get a feeble grasp of it, but that doesn't mean the rules of logic or any other laws we can understand are 'conscious', no more than Firefox or AD&D are conscious, to use my earlier examples.

* - I'm not even going to bother getting into the morass about whether math is a part of logic or whether logic is a part of math

[ashman]

what do you mean current observations?

you've observed this phenomena? I'm quite impressed.

You've heard about open, flat and closed universes?

Well ours is an open one, since there is not enough mass in our universe.

Don't be a twat, that's what the pit is for :thumb:

[1338 h4x0r]

isn't our Universe finite but unbounded? that's what I've heard

[Mr. Ron]

I don't see how something that is finite can have no bounds?

[Futue te Ipsum]

sure, but it makes sense to ask what that really means, how it's possible or how nothing can become something.have you ever posted on a different forum? I remember you, but I dont think I remember you from here.

[1338 h4x0r]

I don't see how something that is finite can have no bounds?

The 2d surface of a sphere is finite but unbounded (i.e., an ant can walk over it and never come to an end)

The Universe, I'm told, is a hypersphere. You can move through all three dimensions and never reach an end, because it's curved through a fourth dimension in the same way that the 2d surface of a sphere is curved through a third.

[ashman]

isn't our Universe finite but unbounded? that's what I've heard


Well there's theories that I like.

One is where the Universe is a four dimensional sphere, so if you travel far enough, you'll end up where you started.

And the other is;

If you could ever get to the edge of the universe (and the 'edge' itself wasn't moving) and you jumped out, you would have inadvertenly expanded the universe to where you jumped out too (I'm no good at explaining this one).

The Open, Closed and Flat expressions are to do with the Graph Distance over time. Open is like an Exponential graph, flat is a bog standard y=x and closed is where y goes up to a certain figure and then goes back to 0.

[Berner]

all germans wear black turtle necks and small, round glasses

lolwut?

http://a70.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/70/l_04a754f8c0489bd8e2834947f39b8a0d.jpg

[1338 h4x0r]

lolwut?

http://a70.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/70/l_04a754f8c0489bd8e2834947f39b8a0d.jpg

counterpoint

http://souvenirs-de-mer.blogdns.net/IMG/jpg/Himmler.jpg

[PerpetualBurn]

You mean kinda like how you ignored my request for you to define what exactly you meant by consciousness?

No, not at all like how I missed a request you edited in 5 minutes after I'd posted my response to the post. Muppet.

And please, don't be so asinine.

You know full well that logic is not a being which can think, or have memory, and thus has no knowledge.

[Berner]

counterpoint

http://souvenirs-de-mer.blogdns.net/IMG/jpg/Himmler.jpg

Himmler can choke on a dick.

[1338 h4x0r]

No, not at all like how I missed a request you edited in 5 minutes after I'd posted my response to the post. Muppet.

And please, don't be so asinine.

You know full well that logic is not a being which can think, or have memory, and thus has no knowledge.

I agree that logic is really only a set of rules and not a 'being'.

however, it is possible to give a mathematical or computer science definition of 'memory' or 'history'. you can see both as the growth of a call stack or iterations of a CPS function

mathematically, it'd be a kind of recurrence relation where the base case is your birth (I guess) and 'n' is where you die. it's backwards.

Himmler can choke on a dick.

That statement is way funnier when I imagine it coming out of Hubert Farnsworth's mouth

[RockAndRoll]

Look at it this way:

These are the virtues/characteristics almost universally attributed to "God": All knowing, All powerful, Omnipresent, Eternal.

Now logic fits the same characteristics if you think about it.

Logic determines what the facts can be. It has already been demonstrated in this thread that illogical things cannot be, so thus, reality must conform to logic. It determines the facts of reality. In this sense logic is all powerful.
Though things cannot be outside the bounds of logic it doesn't follow that logic determines everything. Reality may not be a logical necessity.

If, in theory, all the facts can be deduced from those in the present, then Logic knows all things.
There's good reason to think that they can't though.


The rules of logical consistency exist at any and all points in reality whether it be here or the farthest point in the universe because "reality" is defined as the complete set of all consistent facts that can be derived from logical principles.
No, that's not what reality is. Like I said before, things can't be outside logic, but things aren't necessarily all dictated by logic. there is a difference.

So Logic in this sense is Omnipresent. Science even says this with fundamental laws and whatnot.
What?

I reason that if two concepts share all the same attributes/characteristics, then they are the same thing.
Logic isn't a being, logic does not have a will, logic will not smite you or give you eternal life. Logic doesn't have a son, Logic isn't loving, and indeed doesn't care at all.

"In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God and the Word (Logos) was God."
Okay.

If you want to call logic God or vice versa then be my guest, but I don't see how that's in any way a useful thing to do, and likely all that will happen is you're going to confuse a lot of people and get into useless arguments because you'll both be using entirely different conceptions of God, and thus be arguing about two different things. But like I said, if you really want to you can.

[1338 h4x0r]

Though things cannot be outside the bounds of logic it doesn't follow that logic determines everything. Reality may not be a logical necessity.

Yeah, our Universe might be a lab experiment for all we know.


No, that's not what reality is. Like I said before, things can't be outside logic, but things aren't necessarily all dictated by logic. there is a difference.

I don't get it.

[RockAndRoll]

I don't get it.

Well, for example all euclidian triangles have interior angles which add up to 180 degrees. So, you can't have a euclidian triangle with interior angles adding up to 190 degrees. But if we are given a euclidian triangle it could have any number of combinations of interior angles that add up to 180 degrees. Logic (by itself, without some other observed premise like the length of the sides of the triangle) dictates that the triangle can't have interior angles of 50, 50 and 50, but it can't tell us wether the interior angles are 60, 60 and 60 or 80, 40 and 60.

[McP3000]

Well, for example all euclidian triangles have interior angles which add up to 180 degrees. So, you can't have a euclidian triangle with interior angles adding up to 190 degrees. But if we are given a euclidian triangle it could have any number of combinations of interior angles that add up to 180 degrees. Logic (by itself, without some other observed premise like the length of the sides of the triangle) dictates that the triangle can't have interior angles of 50, 50 and 50, but it can't tell us wether the interior angles are 60, 60 and 60 or 80, 40 and 60.
logic is constrained by the presentation of knowledge.

[1338 h4x0r]

Well, for example all euclidian triangles have interior angles which add up to 180 degrees. So, you can't have a euclidian triangle with interior angles adding up to 190 degrees. But if we are given a euclidian triangle it could have any number of combinations of interior angles that add up to 180 degrees. Logic (by itself, without some other observed premise like the length of the sides of the triangle) dictates that the triangle can't have interior angles of 50, 50 and 50, but it can't tell us wether the interior angles are 60, 60 and 60 or 80, 40 and 60.

Word

[spitfirejunky]

Does that make it a 'conscious entity'? It's not often that I ask a rhetorical question, and I'm not asking one this time ... I'm really puzzled here...

The universe?

What the hell is a 'phenomenology'?

A collection of methods to understand and communicate fundamental ideas that describe certain phenomena.

Chemistry is a phenomenology for the behavior of matter, etc.

I agree that everything in logic and/or mathematics* has existed forever and humans are just beginning to get a feeble grasp of it, but that doesn't mean the rules of logic or any other laws we can understand are 'conscious', no more than Firefox or AD&D are conscious, to use my earlier examples.

* - I'm not even going to bother getting into the morass about whether math is a part of logic or whether logic is a part of math

I think you're mixing my argument with someone else's. I made no claim that logic and the universe are conscious.

All I'm noting is that people tend to confuse methods humans create to describe elements in the universe with the element itself. It's not a sound argument to say that logic is a human construct just because we invented the way of describing it.

[Curve]

Even if a lot of people on here are not trying to be thoroughly misleading, a good proportion are trying to pervert the meaning of 'god'. I don't think you should even be trying to tell people that what you believe as 'god' is infact logic because you know aswell as I do that you are being malevolent.

Most people do not worship logic. You are trying to force a very outdated idea onto a totally different thing that you know twists and breaks the normal idea of 'god'. Logic may well be the basis for all, but that does not mean at all that the standard concept of god is. You do atleast realise that using the word god the way that say Einstein did (although he was using it in a totally naturalistic way) is totally different from your way of trying to subvert a totally supernatural concept into an almost respectable opinion.

[1338 h4x0r]

All I'm noting is that people tend to confuse methods humans create to describe elements in the universe with the element itself. It's not a sound argument to say that logic is a human construct just because we invented the way of describing it.

oh word, perfect sense then

[peeted]

I thought logic was just the formalised study of methods of inference....

[siva_chair]

No, not at all like how I missed a request you edited in 5 minutes after I'd posted my response to the post. Muppet.

And please, don't be so asinine.

You know full well that logic is not a being which can think, or have memory, and thus has no knowledge.

No I don't know full well that. And neither do you. Muppet.

Pretty much all religions that have a supreme deity have called it the Supreme Logic or Truth of the universe. If logic is that from which all things come to be, I don't see the distincition between God and it. It is the creator, the sustainer, ect. of all things.

I wouldn't even hesitate to say that Logic has become your God. Or at least taken the place of God as the dictator of truth. A rose by any other name....

Though things cannot be outside the bounds of logic it doesn't follow that logic determines everything. Reality may not be a logical necessity.

Well if you follow science you pretty much have believe in a fundamental order of the universe that is logical in nature.

There's good reason to think that they can't though.

What do you mean? Are you saying that somethings cannot be deduced logically? That seems to imply that there are somethings that exist outside of logic.

No, that's not what reality is. Like I said before, things can't be outside logic, but things aren't necessarily all dictated by logic. there is a difference.

I don't see how. If logic is, at it's fundamental level, the underlying determiner of truth, nothing can be outside of it. Thus, all of reality is ultimately dictated by Logic.

What?

We assume that the fundamental laws of the universe (which of course are dictated by logic) hold true everywhere in the universe. 2+2=4 no matter where you are in the universe. The rules of logic are Omnipresent throughout reality.

Logic isn't a being,

Yes it most certainly is. In ontology being is anything that can be said to be, either transcendentally or immanently. Are you saying that logic doesn't exist?

logic does not have a will,

The defintion of the term will varies depending upon the context you are using it in.

logic will not smite you or give you eternal life. Logic doesn't have a son, Logic isn't loving, and indeed doesn't care at all.

These are also characteristics of very narrow definition of God.

My point was not to equate it with a specific God, but rather to equate it to the characteristics that are prevailent in almost every theological view of God.

We cannot say logic is any of these things you listed because those are empirically untestable. Much like God, the true scope of logic is not within our empirical grasp.

Okay.

If you want to call logic God or vice versa then be my guest, but I don't see how that's in any way a useful thing to do, and likely all that will happen is you're going to confuse a lot of people and get into useless arguments because you'll both be using entirely different conceptions of God, and thus be arguing about two different things. But like I said, if you really want to you can.

I wasn't really trying to argue with anyone about anything. I just felt like pointing out that the words 'Logic' and 'God' can be viewed as interchangable in a lot of respects.

Most people do not worship logic.

Oh really? Even people on here are always saying how it is the ultimate bearer of truth and if you don't completely follow it you are a stupid idiot, a lesser being, if you will. They try to belittle others that don't exactly fit their specific interpretation or view of what it is or how it functions. People say it is the single most important aspect of human thought. They treat it with praise, honor, and devotion. Sounds strangely like a form of worship to me. Nothing wrong with this, though.

You are trying to force a very outdated idea onto a totally different thing that you know twists and breaks the normal idea of 'god'. Logic may well be the basis for all, but that does not mean at all that the standard concept of god is. You do atleast realise that using the word god the way that say Einstein did (although he was using it in a totally naturalistic way) is totally different from your way of trying to subvert a totally supernatural concept into an almost respectable opinion.

Look, I'm not trying to force anything jackass. And I really don't give two shits whether you respect my opinion or not. The fact is the same view has been around for a very long time. Early theologians even view God as Logic. The Supreme Logic. It seems like the only people who ever start with the whole "big man in the sky" type imagery are people trying to discredit the idea of God.

Also, we only view God as the supernatural because it is beyond our normal scope of perception.

[PerpetualBurn]

No I don't know full well that. And neither do you. Muppet.

Well I do. I guess you're a complete moron or something because logic is a concept and no one has ever seriously suggested that it's a conscious being.

Pretty much all religions that have a supreme deity have called it the Supreme Logic or Truth of the universe. If logic is that from which all things come to be, I don't see the distincition between God and it. It is the creator, the sustainer, ect. of all things.

Logic isn't the creator though. Nor does it have knowledge.

These are things you are supposed to try and demonstrate, not simply restate.

I wouldn't even hesitate to say that Logic has become your God. Or at least taken the place of God as the dictator of truth. A rose by any other name....



Except that's equivocation.

And logic doesn't dictate truth. It's a means through which truth may be arrived.

[siva_chair]

Well I do.

I'm sure you think you do.

I guess you're a complete moron or something because logic is a concept and no one has ever seriously suggested that it's a conscious being.

If it is a concept then it doesn't exist outside of human thought.

Logic isn't the creator though. Nor does it have knowledge.

These are things you are supposed to try and demonstrate, not simply restate.

Everything that has ever come to be has come to be through the rules of logic. If it didn't, it would be illogical and therefore a non-thing. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.

Except that's equivocation.

And logic doesn't dictate truth. It's a means through which truth may be arrived.

Logic doesn't dictate truth? Oh really so what exactly makes 2+2=4 a true statement? The logical framework of something is what determines the truth or falseness of it. Truth and logic are really inseperable.

Either way, I'm done with this. I've seen where this kind of discussion goes with you and I don't have the time or energy to do that.

[1338 h4x0r]

What do you mean? Are you saying that somethings cannot be deduced logically? That seems to imply that there are somethings that exist outside of logic.

lol, kind of

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

Also, some things are difficult to study with any precision, like the weather. At least at a very basic level, the behavior of weather should be entirely predictable ... it's all physics, right? But of course weather is so complex that it doesn't run like clockwork. The best we can do to study such systems is to look at general behavior and predict trends, there are no exact answers in many cases.

And this kind of complexity isn't only in things that change constantly. Consider a surveyor who wants to find the area of a lake with an irregular shape. Exhausting the area of the lake with a lot of rectangles would be tedious and error prone. It would be easier to take a square aerial photograph taken from straight overhead and find how many of a sample of random points fell in the lake, then compare that to the area of the land photographed to find the area of the lake. That's just one way to deal with the kind of real-world complexity that's extremely difficult or impossible to study precisely.

[siva_chair]

lol, kind of

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

Well Godel's theorems don't really imply that things are really outside of logic. It might imply a certain limitation to our ability to deduce certain things, as we can apply it to science and mathematics in general.

Isn't it one of the reason's often cited for the improbability of finding the "theory of everything" within physics?

Also, some things are difficult to study with any precision, like the weather. At least at a very basic level, the behavior of weather should be entirely predictable ... it's all physics, right? But of course weather is so complex that it doesn't run like clockwork. The best we can do to study such systems is to look at general behavior and predict trends, there are no exact answers in many cases.

For a more manageable example, consider a surveyor who wants to find the area of a lake with an irregular shape. Exhausting the area of the lake with a lot of rectangles would be tedious and error prone. It would be easier to take a square aerial photograph taken from straight overhead and find how many of a sample of random points fell in the lake, then compare that to the area of the land photographed to find the area of the lake. That's just one way to deal with the kind of real-world complexity that's extremely difficult or impossible to study precisely.

This is why I said in theory. Obviously human beings are limited in their abilities to deduce everything. In theory it is possible to predict the weather, according to some physics. Of course we do not possess that ability due to the complexity of it and our own shortcomings. The rules of logic aren't inherently limited by our understanding of them. 2+2=4 regardless if human beings are around to determine that and all that jazz.

Of course then there is quantum physics, but I don't really know if I want to open that can of worms...

[Curve]

It seems like the only people who ever start with the whole "big man in the sky" type imagery are your standard ordinary believers.


fixed




Also, we only view God as the supernatural because it is beyond our normal scope of perception.

Ah, well I'm glad you've cleared that up for me. Everything makes sense now that you've just declared that 'everything's alright eveyone, don't worry he's not really supernatural, we just don't get it'.

Now I see how silly questioning religion is when you have such wonderful arguments as changing the standard meaning of god to be naturalistic, and now just declaring that he's not supernatural. Wow...

[1338 h4x0r]

This is why I said in theory. Obviously human beings are limited in their abilities to deduce everything. In theory it is possible to predict the weather, according to some physics. Of course we do not possess that ability due to the complexity of it and our own shortcomings. The rules of logic aren't inherently limited by our understanding of them. 2+2=4 regardless if human beings are around to determine that and all that jazz.

I see. Well, I don't really know if everything is within logic. Animal behavior is a particular problem ... if it's somehow possible to predict everything, even if it would require knowledge that we don't have now, then there is no free will.

[siva_chair]

fixed

No you actually just broke it.

Ah, well I'm glad you've cleared that up for me. Everything makes sense now that you've just declared that 'everything's alright eveyone, don't worry he's not really supernatural, we just don't get it'.

If you flew a jet over medieval Europe, people would consider it a supernatural occurance.

If we fully understood God, he would cease to be a supernatural occurance and would be very natural. I don't see what is very hard to grasp about that.

Now I see how silly questioning religion is when you have such wonderful arguments as changing the standard meaning of god to be naturalistic, and now just declaring that he's not supernatural. Wow...

There is no standard definition of God you tit. That is where most of the problems with this kind of argument stem from.

[1338 h4x0r]

How do you observe God?

[siva_chair]

I see. Well, I don't really know if everything is within logic. Animal behavior is a particular problem ... if it's somehow possible to predict everything, even if it would require knowledge that we don't have now, then there is no free will.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Any speculation and discussion into that usually just involves and argument over semantics, as the "free will" is a bit ambiguous and usually develops into a lame discussion anyway.

Anyway, as I have said, I think I'm done with this current discussion.

[1338 h4x0r]

alright

[siva_chair]

How do you observe God?

Explaining that to someone is a bit like explaining color to a person who has never had the faculty of sight. I'm not even going to attempt it.

[Curve]

No you actually just broke it.



ur funny...



If you flew a jet over medieval Europe, people would consider it a supernatural occurance.




so


If we fully understood God, he would cease to be a supernatural occurance and would be very natural. I don't see what is very hard to grasp about that.



K if you could just show me your evidence for this then we'll be able to wrap all of this up. And plz we want actual hard evidence, not any of your bent a priori arguments.



There is no standard definition of God you tit. That is why I'm allowed to wriggle out of having to defend my god and try and apply pseudophilosophy and change a standard concept into trying to defend a natural force.

God you're a tit

[siva_chair]

ur funny...

Well thanks. You're not.

so

So if you don't see the connection between that and what I said about viewing things as supernatural then I can't even begin to help you, because you are a fool.


K if you could just show me your evidence for this then we'll be able to wrap all of this up. And plz we want actual hard evidence, not any of your bent a priori arguments.

Umm wtf are you going on about?

God you're a tit

Nope and I never claimed to be God either.

[Curve]

I'm not even going to bother...

but you do know that grinding people down with your uncompromising ignorance is in no way a victory for you....

[siva_chair]

I'm not even going to bother...

but you do know that grinding people down with your uncompromising ignorance is in no way a victory for you....

lol

[rasputin]

K if you could just show me your evidence for this then we'll be able to wrap all of this up. And plz we want actual hard evidence, not any of your bent a priori arguments.
hahaha

[peeted]

God is good, logic is moraly neutral. This really is a silly argument.

[PerpetualBurn]

Everything that has ever come to be has come to be through the rules of logic. If it didn't, it would be illogical and therefore a non-thing. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.

I already pointed out that this is a fallacy.

That things occur in accordance with logic does not imply that logic chose them.

There's an infinite number of logical universes we can conceive of. Logic didn't choose to create this one, as we would consider god would, this one is simply one of the infinite permutations.

Logic doesn't dictate truth? Oh really so what exactly makes 2+2=4 a true statement? The logical framework of something is what determines the truth or falseness of it. Truth and logic are really inseperable.

Something can be logical, but not true. This is the difference between validity and soundness.

Either way, I'm done with this. I've seen where this kind of discussion goes with you and I don't have the time or energy to do that.

You mean because I don't let you get away with blatant fallacies? Like you ignored me picking you up on equivocation?

[Futue te Ipsum]

I'm not even going to bother...

but you do know that grinding people down with your uncompromising ignorance is in no way a victory for you....whats wrong with winning that way

[RockAndRoll]

Well if you follow science you pretty much have believe in a fundamental order of the universe that is logical in nature.
Yeah, but that in no way responds to the point I made.


What do you mean? Are you saying that somethings cannot be deduced logically? That seems to imply that there are somethings that exist outside of logic.
Yes, some things cannot be deduced logically. I don't know what "exist outside logic" means because logic isn't a place. But just because something can't be logically deduced doesn't mean that it defies logic. Those are two completely different things.


I don't see how. If logic is, at it's fundamental level, the underlying determiner of truth, nothing can be outside of it. Thus, all of reality is ultimately dictated by Logic.
Logic isn't really a determiner of truth. Deductive logic isn't even actually adding any new information, it's just rearranging old information in new ways that we weren't previously aware of.

Also once again, not defying logic doesn't necessitate being dictated by logic. There could be an infinite number of possible logically viable realities.


We assume that the fundamental laws of the universe (which of course are dictated by logic) hold true everywhere in the universe. 2+2=4 no matter where you are in the universe. The rules of logic are Omnipresent throughout reality.
Once again, while the laws of the universe are logical there's no evidence to suggest that they have some how been dictated by logic. (i.e. that they are a logical necessity)


Yes it most certainly is. In ontology being is anything that can be said to be, either transcendentally or immanently.Are you saying that logic doesn't exist?
It only exists in the same way that science or philosophy exists.


The defintion of the term will varies depending upon the context you are using it in.
And logic doesn't have any of those.


These are also characteristics of very narrow definition of God.

My point was not to equate it with a specific God, but rather to equate it to the characteristics that are prevailent in almost every theological view of God.

We cannot say logic is any of these things you listed because those are empirically untestable. Much like God, the true scope of logic is not within our empirical grasp.
How do you know the true scope of logic is not within our empirical grasp? How did you ever come to that conclusion?

It seems like the only people who ever start with the whole "big man in the sky" type imagery are people trying to discredit the idea of God.
Well that is if you ignore: The greeks, The romans, christians, hindus, jews, muslims, bahai's and so on and so forth. In which case, yes the only people who bring up that kind of idea of God are the people who are trying to discredit the ideas of all those people who originally came up with that Idea.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

What the hell do you guys mean by logic, anyway? To me logic means using the facts you have to deduce something that may be wrong, but is right to the best of your ability.

The most logically sound assumption is not always the truest, and to say that you just didn't know enough to use logic properly is as much of a cop-out as justifying something with "because the Bible says so".

[Lupus]

No it's more than that.

[Bfhurricane]

Hebrews 11:1
1 Now Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Hope in the impossible my friends. Something that will never be accepted by science though.

[Route One]

that passage is retarded

[Bfhurricane]

How is it retarded? Its just the definition of faith.

faith, n - belief that is not based on proof.

[Route One]

thats what makes it retarded.

[1338 h4x0r]

Hope in the impossible my friends. Something that will never be accepted by science though.

Tough ****, I'm not just going to take something on your word

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

How is it retarded? Its just the definition of faith.

faith, n - belief that is not based on proof.

By that same definition of faith, if I asked you to have faith that I am Albus Dumbledore, posting from the Hogwarts Internet Cafe, why would you not believe me?

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm Gandalf

...

Ok, I lied. I'm Odin.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Explaining that to someone is a bit like explaining color to a person who has never had the faculty of sight. I'm not even going to attempt it.Oh my, it be the RAINBOW ANALOGY! First line of the theist's defence, appealling to God's transcendence and the fallibility of our senses as a means of justifying the lack of empirical evidence for the Absolute!

[totah]

By that same definition of faith, if I asked you to have faith that I am Albus Dumbledore, posting from the Hogwarts Internet Cafe, why would you not believe me?

Because by the evidence of my own perception I know that to be false, as Harry Potter was a children's book series.

If, on the other hand, you asked us to believe that you're the principal of Harvard posting from the wifi network of a cheap Panamanian brothel, I might be slightly more inclined to believe you.

BTW are you pro or anti faith in this argument?

[Jude]

How is it retarded? Its just the definition of faith.

faith, n - belief that is not based on proof*.

*empirical proof

Otherwise yeah it would be kind of retarded

[PerpetualBurn]

*unless it's a priori

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Because by the evidence of my own perception I know that to be false, as Harry Potter was a children's book series.

If, on the other hand, you asked us to believe that you're the principal of Harvard posting from the wifi network of a cheap Panamanian brothel, I might be slightly more inclined to believe you.

BTW are you pro or anti faith in this argument?

I think faith is the biggest cop-out in the history of mankind. The Church figured out a pretty smart way to keep down the smart-*** critical minds who dared question it, and it's been sticking to the script for 2000 years now. Absolutely any question you could and should ask can be answered with either "faith is not about looking for proof" or "it is not our place to question God". People believe because they are told to believe, and people do not question because they are taught not to question.

I think faith is a device used to tie together all the loose ends and answer all the questions you're not supposed to ask. I can go on if you want, but I don't think people change their religious opinions based on what someone posts on a message board.

[1338 h4x0r]

*empirical proof

Otherwise yeah it would be kind of retarded

Empirical proof doesn't exist, only empirical evidence

[Jude]

I think faith is the biggest cop-out in the history of mankind. The Church figured out a pretty smart way to keep down the smart-*** critical minds who dared question it, and it's been sticking to the script for 2000 years now. Absolutely any question you could and should ask can be answered with either "faith is not about looking for proof" or "it is not our place to question God". People believe because they are told to believe, and people do not question because they are taught not to question.

I think faith is a device used to tie together all the loose ends and answer all the questions you're not supposed to ask. I can go on if you want, but I don't think people change their religious opinions based on what someone posts on a message board.

You're so unique

Empirical proof doesn't exist, only empirical evidence
That's what I meant, good lookin out.

[fingers mccoy]

faith is a fact...

a facet. Geez, i almost just said faith is a fact!

blooper

[PerpetualBurn]

That's what I meant, good lookin out.

Or if it's not empirical at all.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

I think faith is the biggest cop-out in the history of mankind. The Church figured out a pretty smart way to keep down the smart-*** critical minds who dared question it, and it's been sticking to the script for 2000 years now. Absolutely any question you could and should ask can be answered with either "faith is not about looking for proof" or "it is not our place to question God". People believe because they are told to believe, and people do not question because they are taught not to question.

I think faith is a device used to tie together all the loose ends and answer all the questions you're not supposed to ask. I can go on if you want, but I don't think people change their religious opinions based on what someone posts on a message board.
youre talking about religion not faith fyi

edit and probably most of the rest of yall are too
cuz every time i read an argument about god on here you guys dont know how to differentiate between the two and i just sit here shaking my head

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

You're so unique

stop wasting my bandwidth

youre talking about religion not faith fyi

edit and probably most of the rest of yall are too
cuz every time i read an argument about god on here you guys dont know how to differentiate between the two and i just sit here shaking my head

faith is what ties religion together so it doesn't fall apart at the seams. it's pretty much impossible to talk about one without talking about the other.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

faith is what ties religion together so it doesn't fall apart at the seams.
yes this is true


it's pretty much impossible to talk about one without talking about the other.


no its not and you just proved that you dont know wtf youre talking about

faith is a necessary part of religion but religion can be entirely left out of faith

[Route One]

Faith in an integral part of religion

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

Faith in an integral part of religion

i was editing while you wrote this so see edit

[Route One]

yes this is true



no its not and you just proved that you dont know wtf youre talking about

faith is a necessary part of religion but religion can be entirely left out of faith

what use does faith have outside of religion?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

yes this is true



no its not and you just proved that you dont know wtf youre talking about

faith is a necessary part of religion but religion can be entirely left out of faith

either way you haven't responded to a single thing i've said.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

what use does faith have outside of religion?


its hard to explain but let me try
when you have a religion as big as christianity for example, it is obviously going to become corrupted, like it has, and while it may do beautiful things for lots of people it can have a negative effect on society
faith in a god on the other hand is simply the part of religion that does good for people
it is what can drive a person to move forward when there is nothing else pushing them deal with a crisis, or to clean up their life
the problem comes when mortals are controlling other peoples faith and fabricating everyones idea of god
because then god becomes nothing more than a human in disguise


either way you haven't responded to a single thing i've said.
ya it became obvious pretty quick that would be a waste of time

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

ya it became obvious pretty quick that would be a waste of time

no seriously, let's hear it. quote my original post and tell me what you disagree with. if you're going to nitpick and bitch, follow through. tell me why you think people should just shut up and believe word passed on by fallible mortals without questioning it.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

no seriously, let's hear it. quote my original post and tell me what you disagree with. if you're going to nitpick and bitch, follow through. tell me why you think people should just shut up and believe word passed on by fallible mortals without questioning it.

omfg i just explained this in the very post you quoted
you are talking about organized religion and calling it faith
they are different things and you are stupid enough to think that you cant talk about one w/o talking about the other

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

omfg i just explained this in the very post you quoted
you are talking about organized religion and calling it faith
they are different things and you are stupid enough to think that you cant talk about one w/o talking about the other

where does your faith come from if not from what you are taught to believe?

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

where does your faith come from if not from what you are taught to believe?

how did the buddha or christ come to enlightenment or spiritual illumination?
how did you form your opinion of atheism?

[PerpetualBurn]

faith in a god on the other hand is simply the part of religion that does good for people

But not really.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

how did the buddha or christ come to enlightenment or spiritual illumination?

i don't know about buddha, but apparently some harlot managed to convince her husband she'd had a baby without having sex with him or without cheating on him.

how did you form your opinion of atheism?

to spare you my entire autobiography, half my family is moderately religious italian catholic, the other half is formerly-catholic atheistic WASPs. i grew up asking questions about the world around me , and often found the religious answer very rarely held up to further questioning. from there i went to a strict catholic high school (not because it was catholic, but because it was the best), where i was forced into the taking religious courses because i was baptized, and i got thrown out of class a few times for asking questions when i should've been memorizing answers to questions like "why do the apparent inconsistencies in retellings of the same story only reinforce Christ's message?".


a post i made in another thread is pretty much a best-of list of questions that no teacher in 5 years was able to answer without saying something like "the miracle of faith is proof of God in and of itself". i'll re-quote for nostalgia's sake.

Here's one for you guys - why should we obey our creator simply because he created us? Is religion nothing more than a cosmic carrot and the stick game, where people who are in the loop adopt His morals to avoid punishment? How can we assume our creator is infallible simply because he is superior?

p.s. before you say i'm shooting the messenger instead of looking at the message, in this case the message was created by the messengers. the fallibility of the messenger throws the credibility of the message into doubt.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

i still feel like youre missing my point
i agree w/ you that organized religion is a bunch of bullshi and i dont understand why anyone would ever want to follow a belief system or follow a moral code that was pre made for them
but that has nothing to do w/ faith
i have faith in god but my god is a fair and loving spiritual presence not a man up in the sky w/ a long beard who hates faggots and damns the sinners to hell
i believe it cuz i see it ive seen it before w/ my own eyes and felt it
it cant be proved w/ logic but its not a logical thing to begin with

edit i should mention too that jesus does not appear anywhere in my spiritual beliefs and i have only been to church 2 or 3 times before

[PerpetualBurn]

:wave:

Faith is believing without or in spite of reason.

Religion simply prescribes what specifically to have faith in.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

Faith is believing without or in spite of reason.

Religion simply prescribes what specifically to have faith in.

ya that didnt disprove at all what i said but enjoy your orgasm

[PerpetualBurn]

faith in a god on the other hand is simply the part of religion that does good for people

Except that there's nothing about faith in god that is necessarily good for anyone.

[Smokey D]

Whether faith is good or bad for people is a pretty stupid question because it is so far down the chain and affected by so many other variables that it can't yield a meaningful response.

[BassRevelation1029]

Faith is believing without or in spite of reason.

No, thats blind faith.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

Except that there's nothing about faith in god that is necessarily good for anyone.

what my point was is that when people are going through hard times they turn to their faith and often tell themselves things like 'god has a plan for me' and it helps them through it

[PerpetualBurn]

No, thats blind faith.

No true Scotsman.

what my point was is that when people are going through hard times they turn to their faith and often tell themselves things like 'god has a plan for me' and it helps them through it

I don't understand how that's relevant to anything.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

I don't understand how that's relevant to anything.

uh cuz i said faith is what does good things for people and you were like 'lol not really'

edit in fact you were the one who brought up irrelevant shi by saying
Faith is believing without or in spite of reason.

Religion simply prescribes what specifically to have faith in.

then you were so wrong and sounded so stupid when you said
Except that there's nothing about faith in god that is necessarily good for anyone.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, you just requoted the part where I fully refuted you.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

uh cuz i said faith is what does good things for people and you were like 'lol not really'


this kind of faith is basically the placebo effect. if you're going through rough times and you believe in a higher being who's looking out for you, it will give you strength whether or not there is actually a higher being.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

Yeah, you just requoted the part where I fully refuted you.

you didnt refute shi thats impossible cuz youre wrong and im right


free thinkers:
ya im not denying that what you just said could be true but there is nothing wrong w/ a placebo effect as long as it helps people

[PerpetualBurn]

faith [in God] is what does good things

then I said

there's nothing about faith in god that is necessarily good

Which is the part where you either justify yourself, or realise that I'm right.

[FIGHTCRIMEALLTHETIME]

then I said



Which is the part where you either justify yourself, or realise that I'm right.

i did justify it and you over looked it cuz youre an idiot

[BassRevelation1029]

i did justify it and you over looked it cuz youre an idiot

:lol:

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

I went to church today, my parents made me (being home from college has its downsides) and in the readings there was a quote like "Fear god and follow his rules and you will be rewarded" or somthing along those lines, I think that's pretty verbatim and I just laughed a lot because all those people don't realize the brainwashing that's happening.

My little tidbit of the day, continue with the thread

[BassRevelation1029]

I went to church today, my parents made me
weakling

[Futue te Ipsum]

what I really don't get is the stance of many fundamentalists towards abortion.

God created man and woman
God created woman’s birth mechanisms
God loves babies
30-70% of fertilisations result in spontaneous abortions
God loves babies and wants you to keep them in you no matter what, yet gives you defence mechanisms that more often than not work to filter out or even arbitrarily end the pregnancy.

As humans I can think of many reasons why we would want to not do one. Why any of these reasons would come from the almighty is beyond me.

/general musings from a very drunk person

My problem with religion has never been their belief in god. It's always been the other beliefs that come with it, or the characteristics of that god.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

weakling

they still own me, considering they're paying for my college completely so I can give a little

[BassRevelation1029]

they don't own your opinions.

looks like you're the victim of brainwash afterall.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

hahahah, you don't know my parents

if i refuse to go to church and explain to them why and what i believe, they'll take my car away, make me pay for college, ground me etc....

idk where you got the "im the victim of the brainwash" so i'll laugh at that too

[BassRevelation1029]

oh you have it so bad.

People around the world die for their faith. I'm sure a car-less future wouldn't phase them.

[peeted]

Meh, id go to church when i was home if i got a car and free education out of it.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

free thinkers:
ya im not denying that what you just said could be true but there is nothing wrong w/ a placebo effect as long as it helps people

i agree, which is why i don't pick fights with people who use religion for what i'd call harmless or beneficial means. if someone prays in a situation where i would sit outside and think about something, i have no beef with them. it's people who somehow connect the dots between "i don't know what created the universe so it must've been god" and "kill fags and abortionists" that get me going.

[PerpetualBurn]

oh you have it so bad.

People around the world die for their faith. I'm sure a car-less future wouldn't phase them.

Stop trolling, troll.

He had to go to church to appease his parents whom support him financially. He's not acting like he's poverty stricken. You're just being a dick and quibbling because he said they "made" him, when you know that's not what he meant.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

thanks guys, i thought i was the only one that thought this guy was being a dumbass

[BassRevelation1029]

Stop trolling, troll.

This coming from you is plain laughable

[guitarded_chuck]

oh you have it so bad.

People around the world die for their faith. I'm sure a car-less future wouldn't phase them.

The fact that he does or doesn't go to church for any reason has nothing to do with other ''people around the world''. It keeps his parents and in turn keep him happy. Don't be such a dick.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

This coming from you is plain laughable

i have talked to them about it btw

oh and stop digging a deeper hole