|
Berk Berkly posted:This should be taken in context with what contemporary ideas of what post-life/mortality existence is for or would be like by the way. Exactly what would anyone would be doing for that time? Lots of peeping on naked chicks I'm guessing
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Also, leftism. Seems kinda nice at first, but then you get a little more exposed to it, and yeeesh! You know, for someone obsessed with God and the Bible being the one and only truth, you sure seem to enjoy committing the sin of Sodom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
That's the gimmick
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Gravity works in a particular way, therefor Swiss cheese is the best flavor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
site posted:Respect for others and treatment of everybody as equals? Taking care of the needy and sick? What kind of dumbass believes in that bullshit? The bible is also full of misogynistic statements about women such as how they shouldn't speak in church, presents the female body as inherently disgusting and inferior to the male body, advocates the killing of homosexuals and or practitioners of witchcraft, celebrates the indiscriminate slaughter of the children of rival tribes, and advocates for slaves to obey their masters. It's possible to read the bible in a way that supports a certain kind of equality but to do so you have to ignore a bunch of statements that are clearly against equality as we would understand the term today. One motivation for barbarian leaders to adopt Christianity during late antiquity and the early middle ages seems to be because they realized that moving from a pagan religion to a monotheistic one would make it easier for them to consolidate control over their own followers. If there's one absolutely powerful God should there not be one all powerful and divinly ordained monarch? It's very striking how quickly Christianity went from a cult to the state religion of practically every government in Europe within a handful of centuries. And wherever Christianity spread centralized and authoritarian government followed. That alone should tell you something. Christianity most likely spread in part because it was an ideal religion for rulers to encourage amongst their followers. I remember a passage from Machiavelli's Discourses on the works of Titus Livy where you specifically points out how Christianity has reduced the urge toward rebellion compared to in the ancient world, and while I've never seen a comprehensive scholarly analysis of the argument there's pretty good circumstantial evidence to suggest Machiavelli was onto something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
lmao you picked the completely wrong person to make that response to, dude Good hustle out there though
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
I respond to the argument, not the shitposter who makes it. Presumably there are other people reading this thread who probably aren't as pathetically desperate as you are to try and show you're so drat cool that you make ironic posts on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Absolute, static order, and complete and utter chaos are unfit for existence and information. Its only in the transitional from one to the other our wonderful existence can emerge. Either that or for staring at their sex organs. site posted:Lots of peeping on naked chicks I'm guessing hosed up if true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Helsing posted:shitposter 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
site posted:I've finally hit the big leagues  You've done the board proud.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Helsing posted:That alone should tell you something. Christianity most likely spread in part because it was an ideal religion for rulers to encourage amongst their followers. I remember a passage from Machiavelli's Discourses on the works of Titus Livy where you specifically points out how Christianity has reduced the urge toward rebellion compared to in the ancient world, and while I've never seen a comprehensive scholarly analysis of the argument there's pretty good circumstantial evidence to suggest Machiavelli was onto something. Maybe people are less prone to rebellion because they are happier
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Maybe people are less prone to rebellion because they are happier Man, you would've never made it in the Catholic Church prior to the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
The New Black posted:Anyway, I'd like to introduce the reverse pascal's wager: If god does not exist, there's no point worshipping him. If he does exist, he shouldn't be worshipped. "If you don't worship me I'll torture you for all eternity"? gently caress that guy. This type of argument puts the cart before the horse. If I understand the OP correctly, the thread's purpose is to discuss whether an ultimate reality might exist, not what kind of ultimate reality exists. If we haven't established if God(s) exist(s) then we can't debate its/their nature. The most basic place to start is probably Socrates's idea of an Unmoved Mover, which Rainbowbeard kind-of-sort-of touched on earlier. The argument goes that in the universe, we can observe certain objects that move from actuality to potentiality. Further, an object can only be moved by something else. Potential movement can only be the result of actual movement. Thus, there must be some kind of first mover from which all change proceeds. This first "Unmoved Mover" can be understood to be God. The most frequent criticism of this argument is that the concept of God itself contradicts the argument. As someone mentioned earlier, if everything needs a cause then what caused God? I think most theists would counter that the very concept of God is meant to exempt him from this argument. Ultimate reality is exactly what it implies: something that is above and beyond lived experience. It is not constrained by the same rules as every other object in the universe because it exists outside the universe. My understanding of the science and theories surrounding the Big Bang is a little vague, so I'm not sure I can respond to redstorm's point or correct his presentation. The fact that the main developers of the Big Bang Theory were Catholic priests suggests to me that there is an explanation that at least fits within the Catholic understanding of God. I could be wrong though. Does anyone know how Lemaître might have responded?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:My understanding of the science and theories surrounding the Big Bang is a little vague, so I'm not sure I can respond to redstorm's point or correct his presentation. The fact that the main developers of the Big Bang Theory were Catholic priests suggests to me that there is an explanation that at least fits within the Catholic understanding of God. I could be wrong though. Does anyone know how Lemaître might have responded? One. Georges Lemaitre of the proposers behind the big bang theory was a catholic priest, but that had no actual bearing on his observations, and the actual work was done by Edwin Hubble alongside work done by Vesto Slipher. Religious groups have tried to both imply that the big bang theory implies a creator, others have argued it makes the idea of a creator redundant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:One. Georges Lemaitre of the proposers behind the big bang theory was a catholic priest, but that had no actual bearing on his observations, and the actual work was done by Edwin Hubble alongside work done by Vesto Slipher. Religious groups have tried to both imply that the big bang theory implies a creator, others have argued it makes the idea of a creator redundant. And Inflation Theory sort of makes the idea of a unmoving mover even more redundant, or at least gives no special status or purpose to our Universe. We aren't the only possible outcome and likely not the only outcome as there could be actually infinite, different Universes popping into and sometimes out of existence with no intrinsic purpose or motivation. It is just how reality works. Trying to proscribe some whim or intention upon it is just us projecting our egos and wishful thoughts. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:And Inflation Theory sort of makes the idea of a unmoving mover even more redundant, or at least gives no special status or purpose to our Universe. We aren't the only possible outcome and likely not the only outcome as there could be actually infinite, different Universes popping into and sometimes out of existence with no intrinsic purpose or motivation. It is just how reality works. Yup. Its just more 'privileged reference frames'. Ethnocentrism at its finest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
It is true that a negative cannot be disproved, an all-powerful, omniscient super being cannot be disproved. However, each holy book contains tests that the deity it describes fails. The Bible says that God is perfect and omniscient yet he makes mistakes and becomes enraged. The Koran describes Mohammed as flying away on a "cloud of glory," which is nonsense. Each and every book provides, within its pages, a set of rational tests that the book itself disproves. There maybe be some super powerful being out in the cosmos that the human intellect would qualify as a "god," but we as a species have yet to encounter it. My bet is on Sajuuk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4ut7ecedG4&t=313s
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Fact: when most of you are elderly, you will believe in God.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Fact: when most of you are elderly, you will believe in God. And pigs will fly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
God, quote this if you're real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:God, quote this if you're real. e: Ahh poo poo wait it's a matter of faith! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:God, quote this if you're real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Fact: when most of you are elderly, you will believe in God. Yes it's called fear, do you love to be governed by it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes it's called fear, do you love to be governed by it? Well, he does think he is a sociopath that is only kept righteous by the grace of god. Oh, and all us unbelievers are sociopaths too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:The most basic place to start is probably Socrates's idea of an Unmoved Mover, which Rainbowbeard kind-of-sort-of touched on earlier. The argument goes that in the universe, we can observe certain objects that move from actuality to potentiality. Further, an object can only be moved by something else. Potential movement can only be the result of actual movement. Thus, there must be some kind of first mover from which all change proceeds. This first "Unmoved Mover" can be understood to be God. 1: Everything that moves requires something to move it 2: This thing here moves and does not require something to move it  I like that you seem to recognize the contradiction inherent in the argument, but then you just go ehhhhhhhh...whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Fact: when most of you are elderly, you will believe in God. Ah, the always-successful Argument From Future Fear I Bet You'll Have, You Know, Probably
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah, the always-successful Argument From Future Fear I Bet You'll Have, You Know, Probably I'm a fan of the No Atheists in Foxholes since the one place you are sure to gain confidence in the existence of a benevolent creator is watching other human's blood and viscera exploding from their future-corpse. Well, until the big G decides the time has come for the big one to land on you of course. Hope your children like farming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:This type of argument puts the cart before the horse. If I understand the OP correctly, the thread's purpose is to discuss whether an ultimate reality might exist, not what kind of ultimate reality exists. If we haven't established if God(s) exist(s) then we can't debate its/their nature. Yeah, I know. In fairness I did also engage with the ontological argument. That was just my contribution to the bad joke-posting. QuoProQuid posted:most frequent criticism of this argument is that the concept of God itself contradicts the argument. As someone mentioned earlier, if everything needs a cause then what caused God? I think most theists would counter that the very concept of God is meant to exempt him from this argument. Ultimate reality is exactly what it implies: something that is above and beyond lived experience. It is not constrained by the same rules as every other object in the universe because it exists outside the universe. I'd be inclined to expand on this kind of thinking to question the basis of the discussion. The very idea of a god seems to me to dismiss the possibility (or need) of a logical proof. Since the question specifies God singular, I'm going to assume we are talking about a single Christian-style omnipotent God. In that case, all the old paradoxes come up. Can God make something so heavy that he cannot lift it? Yes, because he's omnipotent. He can also then lift that object, because he's omnipotent, even while still being unable to lift it (omnipotent!) and so on. The whole thing cannot be expressed in logical terms, in our frame of reference. I'm not trying to make a smug rationalist-atheist argument here, what I'm (clumsily) trying to get at is that it seems strange to try to logically prove the existence of something that completely defies logic. Isn't that where the faith comes in? Or, a little differently: "I refuse to prove that I exist" says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." "But" says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don't, QED." "Oh dear" says God, "I hadn't thought of that." and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
I get what the OP is saying about what a coincidence it is that nature fits together so perfectly and that something must have created it, but in my opinion if there was a creator of this universe then it wouldn't be anything like any of our religions described. How could it be? Something like that would be as different from humans as humans are from rocks. I think that if everything was created then it was unintentional and there is no way that whatever created this would think the way humans do, with petty anger and desire for worship. Would it even be sentient? Then again, I'm just a human myself so what do I know and in the end I don't really care either way because it's not like we're ever going to find out. Helsing posted:The bible is also full of misogynistic statements about women such as how they shouldn't speak in church, presents the female body as inherently disgusting and inferior to the male body, advocates the killing of homosexuals and or practitioners of witchcraft, celebrates the indiscriminate slaughter of the children of rival tribes, and advocates for slaves to obey their masters. Thanks for this, it's really interesting. I'd love to go and study history again, especially looking at how religions have changed over the times because it's just so fascinating what it does to people. I once took a paper which looked at the crusades and the mental loops that the people there had to go through were crazy, the whole "You shouldn't murder and steal but it's all cool now cause they're bad guys, and they're bad cause we say so"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
The New Black posted:I'd be inclined to expand on this kind of thinking to question the basis of the discussion. The very idea of a god seems to me to dismiss the possibility (or need) of a logical proof. Since the question specifies God singular, I'm going to assume we are talking about a single Christian-style omnipotent God. In that case, all the old paradoxes come up. Can God make something so heavy that he cannot lift it? Yes, because he's omnipotent. He can also then lift that object, because he's omnipotent, even while still being unable to lift it (omnipotent!) and so on. The whole thing cannot be expressed in logical terms, in our frame of reference. I'm not trying to make a smug rationalist-atheist argument here, what I'm (clumsily) trying to get at is that it seems strange to try to logically prove the existence of something that completely defies logic. Isn't that where the faith comes in? The problem for me with this is that if God can do anything then nothing is proof for God's existence. Cause and effect do not matter and God is so beyond us that its actions could mean anything. Omnipotence gives us imperfect beings no solid ground to stand on so the only option becomes nihilism, at least when it comes to theism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
The New Black posted:Since the question specifies God singular, I'm going to assume we are talking about a single Christian-style omnipotent God. In that case, all the old paradoxes come up. Can God make something so heavy that he cannot lift it? Yes, because he's omnipotent. He can also then lift that object, because he's omnipotent, even while still being unable to lift it (omnipotent!) and so on. The whole thing cannot be expressed in logical terms, in our frame of reference. This kind of illogical omnipotence is not actually Christian orthodoxy. It's common to restrict omnipotence in some way, at least to what is logically possible, and often to what is 'consistent with the divine nature', so that God can do what God wants to do, but that's a pretty restricted range of things. Some would restrict it still further so that it ends up meaning 'God is pretty powerful' - which is really the only way to solve the problem of evil, I think. Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:One. Georges Lemaitre of the proposers behind the big bang theory was a catholic priest, but that had no actual bearing on his observations, and the actual work was done by Edwin Hubble alongside work done by Vesto Slipher. Religious groups have tried to both imply that the big bang theory implies a creator, others have argued it makes the idea of a creator redundant. His beliefs had no bearing on his observations but his observations would have had a an effect on his beliefs. I don't pretend to completely understand Big Bang Theory, but Lemaître remaining a Catholic priest after developing the theory with Hibble and Slipher and the Catholic Church being one of the main groups to popularize the theory suggests either that the Big Bang Theory can't be used to discredit theism or that both would be able to explain away any apparent inconsistency. I was asking if anyone knew what those explanations would be because I'm genuinely not sure. Berk Berkly posted:And Inflation Theory sort of makes the idea of a unmoving mover even more redundant, or at least gives no special status or purpose to our Universe. We aren't the only possible outcome and likely not the only outcome as there could be actually infinite, different Universes popping into and sometimes out of existence with no intrinsic purpose or motivation. It is just how reality works. And that's fine. If you abandon cause and effect, then the "Unmoved Mover" doesn't work as its presented. It's an argument I chose because it is extremely simple and easily discussed. You do, however, need to then accept the consequences of throwing out cause and effect which a lot of people find uncomfortable. VitalSigns posted:1: Everything that moves requires something to move it It is not a contradiction because the traditional understanding of "God" assumes a force with privileged status. It is something that exists beyond the universe and orders the universe around itself. God is an "unmoved mover" in the sense that if there was an original movement then that movement would be one without cause, which would be God. The New Black posted:Yeah, I know. In fairness I did also engage with the ontological argument. That was just my contribution to the bad joke-posting. I personally don't expect this thread to make any breakthroughs on a concept that involves questioning the principles of existence itself. The thread does give us an opportunity to review those arguments in favor and against an ultimate reality though, which is an interesting discussion in and of itself. And yes, many (Christian) faiths would argue that faith is necessary. Logic and reason can lead you so far but only faith can carry you across the threshold. Laverna posted:I get what the OP is saying about what a coincidence it is that nature fits together so perfectly and that something must have created it, but in my opinion if there was a creator of this universe then it wouldn't be anything like any of our religions described. How could it be? Something like that would be as different from humans as humans are from rocks. I think that if everything was created then it was unintentional and there is no way that whatever created this would think the way humans do, with petty anger and desire for worship. Would it even be sentient? I think you'll find that most religions accept this fact and would argue that religion, being a human-made and human-conceived idea, is imperfect and merely approximating concepts that the human mind can never fully understand. The Catholic Church uses the language that all religions are "grasping toward shadows" and that, if one accepts the existence of a God, then one ought to pursue whichever religion possesses an understanding of the divine which is least wrong (which the Catholic Church conveniently considers itself to be, but I digress.) QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:And that's fine. If you abandon cause and effect, then the "Unmoved Mover" doesn't work as its presented. It's an argument I chose because it is extremely simple and easily discussed. Well you sort of chose a bad subject if you want extremely simple and easily discussed. And yes, the more comprehensive and scrutiny-durable you want to describe reality, the more exotic and distant from common experience you have to go. quote:It is not a contradiction because the traditional understanding of "God" assumes a force with privileged status. That is just another way of saying it just a case of Special Pleading. quote:It is something that exists beyond the universe and orders the universe around itself. God is an "unmoved mover" in the sense that if there was an original movement then that movement would be one without cause, which would be God. All that does is back up the question one abstraction from anything we could ever hope to prove empirically and into the ontological which has been beaten and rehashed into a fine subatomic mist at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:
But why give God privileged status? In what way is "God is an uncaused cause" a better explanation than "the universe is an uncaused cause"? Looks like a superfluous addition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:This kind of illogical omnipotence is not actually Christian orthodoxy. It's common to restrict omnipotence in some way, at least to what is logically possible, and often to what is 'consistent with the divine nature', so that God can do what God wants to do, but that's a pretty restricted range of things. Some would restrict it still further so that it ends up meaning 'God is pretty powerful' - which is really the only way to solve the problem of evil, I think. Lots of religions also believe in a devil, an opposing bad god or some kind of supernatural source of evil that's either as powerful as God, or a little less powerful but still very dangerous. Or a destroyer god that just takes on a role of doing natural things that seem evil to us as mortal beings. While a lot of people don't talk about the devil as much as God, or they characterise it as a spooky red guy with horns and hooves, or they only talk about it in very basic terms of its influence on the world ("bad people are led astray by Satan", "Satan put the fossils there" etc.), it may be worth thinking about such a being or force in less simplistic terms, and in the same way we think of a god.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:His beliefs had no bearing on his observations but his observations would have had a an effect on his beliefs. I don't pretend to completely understand Big Bang Theory, but Lemaître remaining a Catholic priest after developing the theory with Hibble and Slipher and the Catholic Church being one of the main groups to popularize the theory suggests either that the Big Bang Theory can't be used to discredit theism or that both would be able to explain away any apparent inconsistency. I was asking if anyone knew what those explanations would be because I'm genuinely not sure. No, I'm pretty sure this is just you. He was a priest before the Big Bang, he'd be a priest after discovering it because his work wasn't some attempt to validate his beliefs. You are reading too much into his work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:And that's fine. If you abandon cause and effect, then the "Unmoved Mover" doesn't work as its presented. It's an argument I chose because it is extremely simple and easily discussed. You do, however, need to then accept the consequences of throwing out cause and effect which a lot of people find uncomfortable. Why do we have to throw out cause and effect? As far as we know, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so what is the point of inventing the unsupported idea that everything including energy can and must be created, only to walk that back and posit still yet another phenomenon that requires no creator? If we're going to accept the existence of uncreated things, it seems to me we might as well stick to the thing we actually know exists which by all indications is impossible to create anyway. Whether you start from God or start from the Universe, cause and effect work just fine after that. Edit: And my other problem with the Cosmological Argument is that it doesn't seem to tell us anything interesting. It just gives an arbitrary name to whatever is responsible for existence, and there's no more reason to call it God than to call it Zeus or the Tooth Fairy or anything else. The only way to get to something interesting is to pick the same name that our favorite religion uses for its deity so we can later equivocate with that and add in external assumptions like "Now obviously the Uncaused Cause which we call BabyJesus hates it so much when dicks go into butts or get pulled out from vaginas too early that it would naturally write a whole book promising to kill you for doing that". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Fact: when most of you are elderly, you will believe in God. Deathbead conversions! Just like Darwin 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
I believe the universe is not out to get me, so therefore God isn't real. Because if God was real, he'd realise what a threat I am with my MENTAL POWERS of smartness and cunning drunkardness and try and kill me. But nobody is trying to kill me ergo gods not real its all cool yo. So I'm off to count angels on a pin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
duck monster posted:I believe the universe is not out to get me, so therefore God isn't real. God fucks up dangerous mortals all the time. Tower of Babel, yo. You're obviously just not as smart and threatening as some dudes building a pile of mud bricks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:40
|
|