|
I like the idea of God existing, so I believe. I haven't decided if God is the single all-powerful creator of the universe, or just a bad rear end group of aliens who surf around the universe not giving a gently caress. The way I see it, and please tell me of this sounds dumb... It's super rare to be the first of anything. Us being the first humans seems unlikely. There's only one first. Isn't it more probable that we're the 10th or 20th or 573853th? Things in nature tend to reproduce and create more of themselves. Humans making more humans to study or whatever makes sense from a curiosity/science prospective. I try to put myself In God's shoes. I imagine living forever gets boring after awhile. I'd be making/planting life loving everywhere, if only for that little flicker of amusement it provided. Because why the gently caress not. As God, me and my space possie of homies could do cool poo poo like evaluate all of earth's life over time and preserve or "save" the coolest peeps to join us in our adventures in God-dom. Make heaven and hell real for some. poo poo maybe even make it so civilizations beliefs about the afterlife and death became reality. Depending on just how powerful we were, making unique/strange laws and phenomenon on planets would be fun. kinda like giving certain people "stats" or blessings/destinies like in video games. I dunno. Being Godlike would be pretty tight. Likely?
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:24 |
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:I like the idea of God existing, so I believe. I haven't decided if God is the single all-powerful creator of the universe, or just a bad rear end group of aliens who surf around the universe not giving a gently caress. I just assume if God can get bored, or really be anthropomorphic in any way it's not what I would call God. But the alien claim could be legit. Honestly I think you just described Doctor Who.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:Definitions for 'God', 'magic, and 'the laws of reality' are needed in order to give this fair treatment, but I think I have a few challenges without them: A being who simply has extraordinary qualities is not God. Humans have extraordinary qualities compared to ants, but we are not gods. A god that merely functions normally is no god at all, and it certainly is not the Abrahamic God. quote:- It is impossible, even for an all powerful God, to break 'the rules of reality'. e.g. No being, however powerful, could create a world where a thing exists and simultaneously doesn't exist. Then such a god is not omnipotent by definition, and therefore not the Abrahamic god. Tangentially, we create worlds where things exist and yet simultaneously don't all the time. We call them video games. quote:-Magic, even if it granted the wielder unimaginable and absurd causal powers (e.g. snapping one's fingers and creating a galaxy), would not contradict or break the rules of reality. It would break (or merely complicate) the 'rules' of science - but science deals with causality and causality is not a law of reality. Science deals with the laws of reality. Causality is a fundamental law of our reality. Magic is a violation of causality and therefore a violation of both science and the laws of reality. These are not contradictions. quote:A magical God then, would simply be an additional causal agent in the universe, albeit an unpredictable one. She could be as active as she wanted, but you could rest assured that 1 and 1 would still equal 2, all bachelors would remain unmarried, and any other formal proof would still hold. I think that you again are falling into a trap of your own devising. You are presupposing a deity of your own creation, and your own limitations. A magical deity, whether they are the Abrahamic God or not, would certainly be capable of bringing into question fundamental proofs like 1 + 1 = 2, or that all bachelors are unmarried. In the Bible, Jesus uses five loaves of bread and two fish to feed a multitude - this is a clear violation of mathematical certitude. Also in the Bible, the virgin Mary gives birth to a child, which is a clear violation of a definitional quality. Indeed it is clear that no proof can truly be safe when magic can effect fundamental changes at any time. I suppose what I'm basically saying is that while one can consider a being that is not magical and violates no laws of reality, but at that point they are no longer a deity and are certainly dissimilar from what this thread is about. Dahn posted:What if reality is limited by the things we are capable of perceiving/measuring. If our entire reality was represented by a line, and that line existed inside a sphere. We only have a concept of the line, our "observer" (the you that is you) is limited to the line. We can only affect or observe the portion of sphere that intersects the line. Something that exists in the sphere and could interact with, and affect everything in the sphere (which includes our line) would seem very God like and limitless, even if it were simply limited to the sphere. It's pretty much impossible to prove or disprove the existence of extremely advanced aliens who exist in a sixth dimension and are capable of acting acausally in our own reality without our notice (i.e. Interstellar). But I can tell you that if those aliens existed then we know nothing about our reality, and nothing can be certain. And I can say that those aliens do not resemble the Abrahamic God, nor any of the religious deities asserted throughout history. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Then such a god is not omnipotent by definition, and therefore not the Abrahamic god. Tangentially, we create worlds where things exist and yet simultaneously don't all the time. We call them video games. Please define 'omnipotent'. In the meantime I will claim that broadly speaking, we can say an omnipotent being is "a being that can do anything". I don't find it overly controversial to interpret the phrase to mean "A being that can do anything that can be done", however it is unintelligible to interpret it as meaning "A being that can do anything including those things that can't be done" e.g. Could God trisect an arbitrary angle with a straight edge and a compass? No, because it is impossible to do so, and it is nonsensical to state otherwise. This doesn't serve as a limit on her omnipotence, it only establishes that power functions in the realm of logical possibility. And no, we do not violate the law of non-contradiction in video games. You are interpreting the concept wrong. Kaal posted:Science deals with the laws of reality. No, science deals with the laws of nature. As applied here, 'law' is a misnomer, as natural laws are more accurately described as 'empirically justified generalizations'. Kaal posted:Causality is a fundamental law of our reality. I can assure you that this is wrong. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I have to point out that basic, widely accepted tenants of Hume's Enquiry establish that this is so, and that this is something that all philosophy students become familiar with very early on in their learning. Kaal posted:I think that you again are falling into a trap of your own devising. You are presupposing a deity of your own creation, and your own limitations. A magical deity, whether they are the Abrahamic God or not, would certainly be capable of bringing into question fundamental proofs like 1 + 1 = 2, or that all bachelors are unmarried. In the Bible, Jesus uses five loaves of bread and two fish to feed a multitude - this is a clear violation of mathematical certitude. Also in the Bible, the virgin Mary gives birth to a child, which is a clear violation of a definitional quality. Indeed it is clear that no proof can truly be safe when magic can effect fundamental changes at any time. No. While a magical being would be capable of performing deeds we would consider scientifically impossible, her actions would still be confined to the realm of logical possibility (as I've established above) - this means that she could not destabilize proofs. Furthermore, the examples you've provided do not violate the laws that you allege they do, i.e. Christ's never ending bread basket makes no scientific sense, but is still perfectly logical. Him having one loaf in one moment, then two in the next moment, then five in the next, etc. is fundamentally different from proving that 1+1=5. Proofs are always safe, that 's why they're proofs. Scientific laws are never safe, and that's why they're not actually laws. These statements obtain in a world with or without God. Ernest Hemingway fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
double post
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:No. While a magical being would be capable of performing deeds we would consider scientifically impossible, her actions would still be confined to the realm of logical possibility (as I've established above) - this means that she could not destabilize proofs. Furthermore, the examples you've provided do not violate the laws that you allege they do, i.e. Christ's never ending bread basket makes no scientific sense, but is still perfectly logical. Him having one loaf in one moment, then two in the next moment, then five in the next, etc. is fundamentally different from proving that 1+1=5. Woah woah woah, what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
If Big Brother or some random Cardassian secret service douche can make 2+2 equal 5, I'm pretty sure that's no big deal for the omnipotent creator of existence itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:Definitions for 'God', 'magic, and 'the laws of reality' are needed in order to give this fair treatment, but I think I have a few challenges without them: So God is a black hole then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:No, science deals with the laws of nature. As applied here, 'law' is a misnomer, as natural laws are more accurately described as 'empirically justified generalizations'. No offense, but I think you just shot your whole argument in the foot here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Woah woah woah, what? My use of the word 'law' there is a little careless, so I will clarify: I'm using 'law' in the sense of 'an unbreakable rule'. VitalSigns posted:If Big Brother or some random Cardassian secret service douche can make 2+2 equal 5, I'm pretty sure that's no big deal for the omnipotent creator of existence itself. I'd prefer if you didn't think I was stupid. We all know that Cardassian did no such thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:My use of the word 'law' there is a little careless, so I will clarify: I'm using 'law' in the sense of 'an unbreakable rule'. Until you find evidence to contradict said laws, they ARE unbreakable. That's kinda the point of being a law. You can change said law if you can present evidence saying otherwise, but saying 'Scientific Laws are Never Safe' or calling them Empirical Generalizations is going a little far.... They are falsifiable, given the conditions match the conditions the law describes, but otherwise they are fairly stout and safe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Yeah he did. Captain Picard ends the episode by saying that right before he got taken away, David Warner made him believe he saw five lights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:I'd prefer if you didn't think I was stupid. We all know that Cardassian did no such thing. We have eyewitness testimony that he did though. Captain...Jean-Luc Picard of the USS...Enterprise posted:What I didn't put in the report was that at the end he gave me a choice - between a life of comfort or more torture. All I had to do was to say that I could see five lights when, in fact, there were only four...But I was going to. I would have told him anything. Anything at all! But more than that, I believed that I could see five lights. fb 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So God is a black hole then. Yes, with Matthew McConaughey in the middle. Jack Gladney posted:Yeah he did. Captain Picard ends the episode by saying that right before he got taken away, David Warner made him believe he saw five lights. But he was still prepared for the guards to take him away for a lifetime of torture without stating so. I think this is evidence enough to show that he still rationally doubted the fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:But he was still prepared for the guards to take him away for a lifetime of torture without stating so. I think this is evidence enough to show that he still rationally doubted the fact. No he wasn't, he admitted he was about to say it like two seconds before he was ordered to be released. It's all there in the Historical Records.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Can the rest of the thread please continue to frame all theological discussion in the context of TNG?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Can the rest of the thread please continue to frame all theological discussion in the context of TNG? Can Q create a plot so obnoxious even He can't abide it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No he wasn't, he admitted he was about to say it like two seconds before he was ordered to be released. ...b-but he was warned that once the guards got there it would be too late.... and he let the guards walk right up to him without saying anything! What kind of strategy is that?! I mean, I can't really say that you're wrong or anything.... but Picard is just DENSE.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can Q create a plot so obnoxious even He can't abide it? Yes, but he would Redeem it by the grace of being played by John de Lancie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes, but he would Redeem it by the grace of being played by John de Lancie. I think this happens in the first episode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:In the meantime I will claim that broadly speaking, we can say an omnipotent being is "a being that can do anything". I don't find it overly controversial to interpret the phrase to mean "A being that can do anything that can be done", however it is unintelligible to interpret it as meaning "A being that can do anything including those things that can't be done" e.g. Could God trisect an arbitrary angle with a straight edge and a compass? No, because it is impossible to do so, and it is nonsensical to state otherwise. This doesn't serve as a limit on her omnipotence, it only establishes that power functions in the realm of logical possibility. That's all great, but the non-magical, non-omnipotent, logic-abiding, being that you are talking about is not a god. And she certainly is not the Abrahamic God. To put it shortly, God does not pull levers. quote:Furthermore, the examples you've provided do not violate the laws that you allege they do, i.e. Christ's never ending bread basket makes no scientific sense, but is still perfectly logical. Him having one loaf in one moment, then two in the next moment, then five in the next, etc. is fundamentally different from proving that 1+1=5. I think that your biblical knowledge might be failing you there. In the miracle of the five loaves and fish, Jesus lands his boat at Bethsaida and sees that a crowd of 5,000 men, as well as women and children, have gathered to wait for him. He has only five loaves of bread and two fish, but he looks up to heaven and then breaks apart the loaves and hands the pieces out into the crowd, and when all is said and done everyone is full and there's food leftover. One should remember that the story was created before multiplication, which is why the story is written in such an illogical manner, but it's clearly a case of 5 + 2 = 5,000+.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can Q create a plot so obnoxious even He can't abide it? Pretty sure even Q would have thrown his hands up and given serious consideration to creationism after watching the Threshold episode of Voyager
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway posted:...b-but he was warned that once the guards got there it would be too late.... and he let the guards walk right up to him without saying anything! It's established canon that Picard is bad at strategy. We're talking about a guy who lost control of his ship and crew to a Victorian literary character, not once but twice. Like I assume he only kept his command after that because nobody in Starfleet command would have believed that a literal comic book villain from make-believe land could seize the flagship of the fleet, so none of the crew bothered to write a report for fear they'd sound like loons. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
I always wondered about that, the Enterprise is supposed to have the best and the brightest on it, I can only imagine how lovely the rest of Starfleet's crews must be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I always wondered about that, the Enterprise is supposed to have the best and the brightest on it, I can only imagine how lovely the rest of Starfleet's crews must be. The Enterprise D is a weird ship in general. A general purpose exploration, diplomatic, military flag ship. Like, Kirk's Enterprise was much more streamlined in facilities and didn't have the large civilian crew population and amenities that Picard rolls with. I imagine other ships, especially smaller vessels are much more streamlined crew and function wise. Science Vessels, Troop and Material/Cargo haulers, patrol vessels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I always wondered about that, the Enterprise is supposed to have the best and the brightest on it, I can only imagine how lovely the rest of Starfleet's crews must be. I always imagined there was 'Goon' version of a Starfleet ship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That's all great, but the non-magical, non-omnipotent, logic-abiding, being that you are talking about is not a god. And she certainly is not the Abrahamic God. But the God I'm describing is magical and omnipotent... and yes, logic-abiding, which I've argued is necessarily the case - and this follows for the Kaal posted:I think that your biblical knowledge might be failing you there. In the miracle of the five loaves and fish, Jesus lands his boat at Bethsaida and sees that a crowd of 5,000 men, as well as women and children, have gathered to wait for him. He has only five loaves of bread and two fish, but he looks up to heaven and then breaks apart the loaves and hands the pieces out into the crowd, and when all is said and done everyone is full and there's food leftover. One should remember that the story was created before multiplication, which is why the story is written in such an illogical manner, but it's clearly a case of 5 + 2 = 5,000+. The numbers themselves are irrelevant to the argument I've made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's established canon that Picard is bad at strategy. Like when they get stuck in that time loop where the Enterprise gets destroyed over and over again, and Worf states the obvious and is just like "Why don't we just stop and turn around?", and Riker is like "But turning around could be what gets us destroyed." and Picard is like "Yep, no second guessing, let's stay on course" and they fly right back to the destruction scenario. ....there are so many ways Picard could've have thought through that and realized that Worf was right (which he was). e.g. He should have known that the first time through the loop he wouldn't have listened to Worf because he never listens to Worf. and should probably give it a try.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:The Enterprise D is a weird ship in general. A general purpose exploration, diplomatic, military flag ship. Like, Kirk's Enterprise was much more streamlined in facilities and didn't have the large civilian crew population and amenities that Picard rolls with. That's the other thing that's weird about the Enterprise. They fly everywhere with this huge complement of civilians and children, even when they know they're assigned some insanely dangerous mission like "hey go fight the Borg, you might not come back but buy us some time with your almost-certain deaths while we assemble the fleet to stop them at Wolf 350" And apparently it's not even like standard procedure because years later in DS9 there's that other Galaxy-class ship that's going to investigate the Federations new super-crazy dangerous enemy, and it takes a junior officer to suggest to the captain he might not want to take children with him, and he's like "oh yeah okay I guess I'll leave them behind" and then goes on to get his ship blown up with all hands after a 5-second fight  So what I am saying is: theodicy disproves God because much like the Federation, the sheer amount of avoidable misery inflicted on the innocent babes means that whoever is in charge must lack power, or competence, or goodness, or all three. Ernest Hemingway posted:e.g. He should have known that the first time through the loop he wouldn't have listened to Worf because he never listens to Worf. and should probably give it a try. Picard probably did think of that but he decided it wasn't worth saving his ship if he had to thank Worf for it. And I mean it's not like it mattered, he knew if he hosed up and blew up the ship again he'd get to have another go. Picard is pretty committed to never letting Worf have anything. Like, in Nemesis when the fate of the entire earth and billions of people relied on one person going over to that Romulan ship and kicking everyone's rear end and stopping the doomsday weapon he's like "nah, I don't want to send Work the war hero with a whole bunch of combat championships under his belt too. I think I'll risk the entire earth on the chance that I, a geriatric old man, can take out a huge ship full of monsters singlehandedly" So uh, Worf is Judas and there's a secret Gospel according to Worf where Worf is right about everything but Picard took him aside and asked him to keep that a secret for the greater good. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So what I am saying is: theodicy disproves God because much like the Federation, the sheer amount of avoidable misery inflicted on the innocent babes means that whoever is in charge must lack power, or competence, or goodness, or all three. Why does the lack of goodness disprove God? At best isn't it the case that all you can say is that goodness is not a universal trait of God? That goodness is a human trait?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Yeah I meant the tri-omni God. I admit that reasoning doesn't rule out the TOS Squire of Gothos explanation that God is a cruel child who created the universe as a lark one summer afternoon and pretty soon his parents will make him put his toys away and come to dinner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I meant the tri-omni God. I admit that reasoning doesn't rule out the TOS Squire of Gothos explanation that God is a cruel child who created the universe as a lark one summer afternoon and pretty soon his parents will make him put his toys away and come to dinner. Fair point. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I meant the tri-omni God. I admit that reasoning doesn't rule out the TOS Squire of Gothos explanation that God is a cruel child who created the universe as a lark one summer afternoon and pretty soon his parents will make him put his toys away and come to dinner. That's like every fifth episode of the old show. Rational humans killing God with cool reason and socialism is like Roddenberry's favorite story next to old men getting to gently caress pretty young women. Except for that one where they to the Roman Planet and it turns out Jesus is real and just shows up on other planets sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Ernest Hemingway , when people talk about how D&D is full of pedantic idiots that ruin everything they mean you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
TheSpookyDanger posted:Ernest Hemingway , when people talk about how D&D is full of pedantic idiots that ruin everything they mean you. That's very well put. You've hurt my feelings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
God defies rational argument, I believe in God out of faith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
You guys have it backwards. 2+2=4 is arbitrary a.d what God wants us to believe. I get making GBS threads on the protestant concept of God but that is such a.limited, unimaginative position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
JohnsonsJohnson posted:God defies rational argument, I believe in God out of faith. Where did that faith come from? Which God do you believe in, and why that one over any others?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Where did that faith come from? Which God do you believe in, and why that one over any others? I just cant buy any particular religious conception if God other than there being some powerful, good consciousness of the universe. Id like to think my faith is a form of intuition but it may just because I'm terrified of me and my loved ones not existing after death and I want to believe we are all part of some cosmic narrative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:24 |
|
|
JohnsonsJohnson posted:I just cant buy any particular religious conception if God other than there being some powerful, good consciousness of the universe. Id like to think my faith is a form of intuition but it may just because I'm terrified of me and my loved ones not existing after death and I want to believe we are all part of some cosmic narrative. You understand that what you're saying here is rationalizing, right? The moment you start looking for a cause you're creating a logical argument. You believe in God because your intuition tells you so, or because you're afraid of a final death. You're explaining your faith. You're explaining God, and you're not doing it convincingly. Doesn't that seem odd to you? That things such as fear and gut instincts aren't really worthwhile answers to most questions, like, "Can I cross this street safely?" or "How tall is that tree?", but they're appropriate for a much more important, but nonetheless factual question "Does God exist?" What do you think will happen if you let your intuition drive your car for you? For that matter, how much intuition do you think went into designing the first combustion engine? Here's my point. You can't really derive knowledge from emotion alone. You can't answer factual questions with feelings. At least not effectively.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 11:37
|
|
